Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Climate Change

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. David Chaytor: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the most important environmental issue of our time. The threats and challenges posed by climate change do not fit comfortably into the conventional time scales of domestic politics: significant changes of policy do not have immediate effects but without such changes we will continue to walk into the unknown, facing the prospect of unprecedented social and environmental disaster in the first half of the next century.
Climate change is an issue that needs to be dealt with urgently, not only because the clock is already ticking but because, as each day goes by, the scale of the problem is steadily increasing. New research on the availability of the world's oil reserves has highlighted the need for urgent action.
I pay tribute to the work of right hon. and hon. Members who have already made outstanding contributions to the politics of climate change. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), as Secretary of State for the Environment, ensured that the implications of climate change were understood by the previous Government.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister ensured that our Government provided international leadership at the Kyoto conference through his tireless work in seeking agreement on the protocol from powerful nations whose natural interests did not automatically coincide.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is admired by environmentalists both in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union for his detailed understanding of the wider implications of climate change and his dogged determination to secure the implementation of the necessary policy changes.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for his work on the issue and in particular for his recent establishment of the all-party globe group—and I congratulate him on his recent election to the Welsh Assembly.
As tomorrow is polling day for the European elections, I pay tribute to the present Conservative Member of the European Parliament for Surrey who, in his capacity as president of Globe International, has ensured that climate change has been widely debated in the European Parliament and in the legislatures of many other countries. Sadly, he is not a candidate in tomorrow's elections.

Had he been so, it is difficult to imagine which of the two Conservative parties he would have represented. Offering a choice of two Conservative parties is taking the belief in freedom of choice to remarkable extremes: it is freedom of choice with a vengeance, and I suspect that the emphasis will be very much on the vengeance after tomorrow's elections.
Climate change was first identified as an issue of international political significance at the Rio Earth summit in 1992, as a result of which 174 countries signed the framework convention on climate change, the substance of which allowed for a voluntary target of restoring the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000.
As a result of the evidence produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community, the Kyoto conference of December 1997 established a protocol, including a legal agreement under which the developed countries would reduce their emissions of the six main greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and nitrous oxide—to 5.2 per cent. below 1990 levels in the period from 2008 to 2012.
The international scientific community concluded that if no action were taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures would rise by between 1 deg and 3.5 deg by the end of the next century. That statistic will not excite the electorate in an election campaign, but it nevertheless represents the biggest increase in temperature on this planet since the ice age 10,000 years ago.
For those who are sceptical of scientists' ability to make such predictions, I would simply point out that in the past 10 years we have experienced seven of the hottest years since records began in 1860. Climate change is with us now. I repeat that the consensus of the scientific community is that the almost exponential growth in carbon emissions brought about by our burning of fossil fuels throughout the past 200 years, and particularly in the past 100 years, is largely responsible for those temperature increases.
Climate change may not be the most exact term and perhaps we should be speaking of climate instability or climate volatility, because if no action is taken we will experience a dramatic rise in sea levels, by between 15 and 95 cm, as the polar ice caps melt. I calculate that that would result in the loss of virtually the whole of East Anglia and the fenlands, representing about 35 Conservative seats at the last count. I note the presence of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns); his seat is on the list of those that would be flooded.
The whole pattern of the world's weather will change, increasing the likelihood of heatwaves, floods, droughts and storms, and intensifying the process of desertification in certain parts of the world, so that many millions of people will no longer be able to grow their own food.
The availability and distribution of water supplies will change unpredictably, with disastrous consequences for agriculture, and biodiversity will be lost as the habitats of rare and vulnerable creatures are destroyed. The economic costs will be enormous, as many insurance companies are now beginning to realise, and the impoverishment or displacement of whole populations will lead to refugee crises of a kind that the world has not yet experienced.
It therefore seems sensible to take the necessary precautions now, to avoid those unpredictable consequences later. I reiterate my recognition of the preparatory work done by the previous Government, and congratulate the present Government not only on the international leadership shown in helping to negotiate the agreement at Kyoto, but on the speed with which policy has been developed.
It is significant that we are now committed not only to the 12.5 per cent. target—our legally binding share of the European Union's Kyoto target—but to our manifesto commitment to a domestic target of a 20 per cent. cut in CO, emissions. To their credit, the Government have moved swiftly in outlining the framework of policies that might achieve that.
The October 1998 consultation paper on climate change was preceded by the White Paper on transport, and followed last month by the White Paper on sustainable development. There have also been important Government statements on renewable energy, the review of energy sources for power generation and the recent consultation paper on fuel poverty.
The recommendations of Lord Marshall's report, which led to the establishment of the climate change levy in the 1999 Budget, as well as other measures in that Budget, will also in time play a significant part in the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the time for talk is now over; it is time for action and implementation.
In response to the admirable range of measures that the Government have already proposed or implemented, I shall raise a series of further points for consideration. First, it is crucial that the Government make clear the nature and status of the 20 per cent. domestic target. It is not legally binding, but it is politically binding. Our election manifesto said:
We will lead the fight against global warming, through our target of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by the year 2010".
Last month's White Paper on sustainable development talks about moving towards a domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction, and I fear that there is a slight shift of emphasis there. We need clarification, because the target will determine the range of future policies not only in the first decade of the next century but beyond. It should now be possible to set interim targets for a Parliament, with strategic targets for the longer term.
Secondly, transport contributes about 23 per cent. of total emissions. The White Paper on integrated transport produced some excellent ideas around which a new consensus on transport policy can be built, but we are waiting for the means to implement many of those ideas. For example, our attitude to traffic growth is crucial, because we need to clarify the precise extent to which we aim not only to reduce the predicted growth in traffic but to reverse it. I welcome recent ministerial statements confirming the intention to achieve a genuine reduction in absolute terms.
Thirdly, the White Paper refers to a target of generating 10 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2010. Subsequent statements have implied that that may not be quite such a precise target, so I draw the attention of the House to what has already been achieved elsewhere—

for example, in Denmark, where 5 per cent. of electricity is already generated from renewables, and a much tougher target of 20 per cent. has been set for 2010.
A recent report by Greenpeace argues the case for the development of an offshore wind industry, which it says could provide 30,000 jobs. The expansion of renewable forms of energy is no longer a question of technological limitation; it is almost entirely a question of political will.
Fourthly, there is the question of energy efficiency. Four private Members' Bills on the subject have come before the House recently. The Energy Efficiency Bill and the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill received Government support, but were blocked by Opposition Members. We have to ask ourselves how much longer we can endure a system for dealing with private Members' Bills which allows the infantile antics of a single eccentric Back Bencher to block proposals that are widely considered on both sides of the House to be sensible and positive.
I urge the Government to explore every possible means of incorporating the eminently sensible proposals in those two Bills into other legislation at an early stage. I hope also that they will reconsider the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill in the context of preparing the climate change programme later this year.
I welcome the Government's support for the Fuel Poverty and Energy Conservation Bill, and also the recent consultation paper on fuel poverty. There is an urgent need for co-ordination of all the Government's programmes dealing with fuel poverty and energy efficiency along the lines proposed in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill. It may not be possible at this stage to propose such an ambitious programme, but the fact remains that energy efficiency programmes produce long-term savings after an initial short-term investment. Moreover, where they are specifically designed to alleviate fuel poverty, such programmes emphasise the point that the policies of social justice and the policies of environmental protection are in most cases two sides of the same coin.
Before leaving the subject of energy efficiency, I must point out the continuing anomaly whereby VAT is still levied on most energy-efficient materials. It is particularly important that the Government seek to extend the very welcome VAT exemption that they have already introduced for the home energy efficiency scheme to all energy-saving materials.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend has been very candid and well informed in speaking to the House, but how can we duck the question that to achieve those objectives, nuclear capacity will be needed?

Mr. Chaytor: If over the past 50 years a fraction of the public investment that has been made in developing nuclear energy had been applied to developing renewable energy and energy conservation, we would not now need nuclear energy. I think that there is a future role for nuclear energy, but all kinds of questions surround that role, and I do not think that it will be as large as the role that nuclear power now plays. I repeat that at the moment, for reasons of safety and sustainability, I do not believe that there is a strong argument for an expansion of nuclear power.
On the domestic front, the climate change levy is one of the most important economic instruments at the Government's disposal. My right hon. Friend the


Chancellor is to be congratulated on the way in which he and Lord Marshall have successfully developed a consensus behind the concept of the levy. That is not to deny that there are many issues still to be resolved. There will be some lively discussions between the Treasury and the different industrial sectors before agreement is finally reached.
In that context, I draw attention to renewables, to combined heat and power, to the recycling of the revenue from the levy into energy efficiency, and to the need to protect small businesses. If the levy is to be generally accepted as a sensible measure, it must operate with consistency. It would be inconsistent if renewable forms of electricity were subject to the levy to the same extent as other forms, as that would undermine the part of the industry that, by definition, is contributing to the solution rather than causing the problem. A similar case can be made for combined heat and power because of the additional efficiency of CHP plants, although clearly such plants generate significant emissions.
The Government have been at pains to stress the revenue neutrality of the whole operation of recycling revenues. Some £50 million has been set aside for investment in energy efficiency schemes, and there is a strong case for increasing that allocation. It would be self-defeating if the demand for investment in energy efficiency schemes could not be met because of arbitrary limits on the share of climate change levy revenues to be recycled. In the long run, of course, recycling the revenues into energy efficiency could be more productive than simply providing national insurance rebates. However, the key aim underlying the levy must be to deliver whatever form of recycling of revenues will achieve the most effective reduction in CO2 emissions.
Although the domestic programme is important, when the Government draw up their final strategy, we must accept that whatever they can achieve domestically depends on international developments. However radical our local programme in this country might be, global climate change will not be halted or even slowed down without international agreement. In no other context is the limitation of the power of the nation state in today's inter-dependent world more obvious, or the need for international co-operation through international institutions more important.
Therefore, I wish to comment on the state of negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, which will be enforced only when the signatory nations choose to ratify it. Currently, there is a problem with the position of the United States and of the major blocs representing the developing countries. The Americans will not agree to reduce emissions unless the Chinese and others agree to a reciprocal reduction, while the developing countries do not see why they should have to prejudice the chance of economic growth when the problem of climate change has been created by emissions from the industrial countries. It is crucial that we find a way forward to which the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians and the African nations can agree.
In many analysts' opinion, a policy of contraction and convergence provides the way out of the logjam. Under such a policy, each nation would be allocated a quota of emissions based on population, and set in the context of agreed environmental limits. Over time, industrial nations would be required gradually to reduce emissions, while

developing countries would be permitted gradually to increase theirs, until a point was reached at which the emissions quotas of all countries were relatively equal.
That seems to provide the only practical and principled resolution of the conflicting interests of the developed world and the developing world, based on equal rights for all human beings. I urge the Government to present the case for contraction and convergence as a realistic means of facilitating the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I commend the research conducted by the Global Commons Institute in developing that model.
Another issue related to the Kyoto protocol has to do with the so-called flexibility mechanisms, and in particular with the use of emissions trading, whereby countries can buy pollution credits from other countries. Realistically, that is a necessary device to enable the United States to ratify the protocol and achieve some progress in reducing emissions. However, unless a framework of contraction and convergence is agreed, there remains the problem of the proportion of any country's total emission reductions that can be achieved through emissions trading. Above a specific figure—50 per cent., for example—it would be unlikely that any global emissions reduction would be achieved, as countries would merely buy and sell each other's permissions to emit. Emissions trading can provide an incentive to reduce emissions, but it could also be a device to defer indefinitely the reduction of emissions. To avoid the latter possibility, it is essential that a policy of contraction and convergence is established in advance of agreeing an emissions trading regime.
I have spoken widely about the domestic and international dimensions of the policy changes needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Some people will say that it is an unnecessarily complex, bureaucratic and cumbersome set of responses to a single scientific assertion—that accumulated carbon deposits are the direct cause of climate change—and ask what would happen if that theory were to be disproved in a few years' time.
My answer would be simple. Even if the collective wisdom of the intergovernmental panel on climate change were subsequently to be disproved, and even if the political judgment of almost every nation in the world were to be reversed, it would still make absolute sense to start now to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels because, by definition, they will not last for ever. If sustainable development means anything, it surely means that we do not leave the next generation without the means to power factories or heat homes, schools or hospitals.
The finite nature of fossil fuels is most evident with oil. Industrial progress and economic growth in the 20th century have been built on the assumption of infinite supplies of cheap and accessible oil. Empires have been built on the back of cheap oil, and wars fought to maintain its supply. As older oil fields dried up, new ones were discovered and it was assumed that the process would continue indefinitely.
Until recently, it was assumed that current reserves of oil would be plentiful until about 2050. Unfortunately, some of the latest research—and I refer to the work of Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere, published in the past few months—indicates that that assumption was based on inaccurate figures generated by a dubious methodology that stemmed from the need of oil companies and


oil-producing nations artificially to inflate their reserves for their own political and economic purposes. Global oil production is now forecast to peak before 2010.
There are two consequences of that. First, it is inevitable that the price of crude oil will start to rise, as has happened quite dramatically in the past few months. Secondly, given that North sea production will start to peak even earlier, probably within the next two years, in the early years of the next century the industrialised world will once again be largely dependent on oil from the middle east. Therefore, the geopolitics of the next century will allow only two scenarios: either we start now drastically to reduce our consumption of oil through energy conservation, the exploitation of renewable forms of energy and the development of alternative sources of fuel, or we find ourselves involved in a semi-permanent conflict with Iraq—or another country—throughout the early years of the next century.
To avoid the worst effects of climate change and the possibility of future military conflicts fought in a vain attempt to continue the illusion of infinite supplies of cheap oil, we must initiate now a radical programme of energy conservation, renewables and the development of alternative sources of fuels.

Mr. David Drew: I am sorry that I missed the very start of my hon. Friend's speech, but he has concentrated on the role of producers of energy. Will he comment on the role of consumers? In my constituency, consumers have attempted to form a co-operative so that they can buy renewable energies. Is that not a valuable addition to the movement away from our traditional treatment of our climate?

Mr. Chaytor: That is an extremely important point. People's willingness to act depends on the extent to which they understand the scale of the problem, which in turn depends on the extent to which the Government are prepared to introduce a significant programme of political education on these matters. My gut feeling is that many people in Britain have a general understanding that something called global warming is taking place, but that they have not yet understood fully the scale of the problem. There is a major responsibility on the Government and industry not to shy away from the reality of the situation. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I know that many similar bottom-up schemes exist elsewhere in the country, where people understand the need to take action at local level.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that we developed a sensible policy towards Iraq, which probably has the largest oil reserves in the world?

Mr. Chaytor: I endorse my hon. Friend's comment.
The time has come for us to see the Government's climate change programme in action. I have a number of questions for my hon. Friend the Minister, in the hope that he will be able to clarify certain matters.
First, will he confirm that the reference to the domestic target for CO2 reductions included in the White Paper on sustainable development does not represent a shift in the Government's position away from the general election

manifesto commitment and from the Prime Minister's statement? Are we still committed to the 20 per cent. target and will the climate change programme include a clear statement showing how we can achieve it? Secondly, will the Government adopt the underlying principles of the contraction and convergence model as the basis for future international negotiations as they seek both to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to achieve international agreement for the years beyond 2010?
Thirdly, will the Minister tell us the latest thinking on the most effective means of recycling revenues from the climate change levy? How will it be used to avoid harming the development of combined heat and power and a viable renewable energy industry? Fourthly, does he accept recent research by Colin Campbell and others that has been adopted in the International Energy Agency's planning assumptions? Does he accept that that creates added impetus for urgent action for a planned and phased withdrawal from our over-dependence on fossil fuels?
It is to the enormous credit of the Government that they—far more than any previous Government—have committed themselves to the objective of sustainable development that will meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The way in which the Government respond to the threats and challenges posed by climate change, and the many difficult decisions that will need to be taken over coming years and months, will present the major test of how successfully they have achieved their objective.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for making this debate possible. I am delighted to be able to speak briefly. I am not a scientist and it is five years since I last spoke in a science debate. I doubt whether non-scientists should speak in science debates more than once in a lustrum. I may be the sole survivor in the House of a seminar on climate change that was mounted by the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, 10 years ago at 12 Downing street. The sole American observer present said at the seminar's conclusion that he doubted whether any other country could have assembled as much political authority and scientific knowledge in a single room.
The hon. Gentleman issued a valuable brief in advance of his debate and I am grateful to him, although I do not intend to speak on that brief. I wish to telegraph a series of largely unrelated points. Winding-up speeches may follow the example of Burke, for whom all the arguments were marshalled in advance like soldiers, although that is generally more suitable for opening speeches. Alternatively, they may follow the example of Fox, who could extemporise at the drop of a hat and genuinely respond to a debate. The Government contain winding-up speakers of both types. On the whole, Foxes make better winding-up speakers and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions,


the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), with whom I frequently discuss matters on a wide variety of subjects, will follow the example of Fox.

Mr. Dalyell: For the benefit of the ignorant among us, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what a lustrum is?

Mr. Brooke: I hesitate to seek to educate the hon. Gentleman, of whom I am very fond, but I said that I had spoken once in five years on science. A lustrum is a period of five years. It is the matching word for decade.
What I have said about wind-up speeches is relevant to environmental change, a subject on which at the end of conferences and debates policy makers from all countries tend to sound as if they had prepared their concluding remarks in advance and then fitted the facts of the conference around them. I said that I would telegraph some points. First, integrated assessments are all very well, but they are only as good as the sum of their parts. Secondly, the buying of surplus from poorer countries—what treaties call flexibility—may not prompt investment by rich countries in energy saving.
Thirdly, the most ambitious targets for energy saving are being set by countries, including the United Kingdom, that have the lowest public sector expenditure on research and development in this area. We had quite high public sector expenditure on R and D during the 1970s, when there was the oil threat, but it has receded. The countries that invest the most in public sector R and D, such as Japan, may have identified a global commercial opportunity that underlies that investment.
Fourthly, new energy sources are grand, but they may bring ancillary problems. For example, as much solar energy could be created in Egypt in a space one two-hundredths of the area covered by the Aswan dam and its hinterland, but the storage problem would have to be solved. There is a moral lesson there: we lost out on the on-land wind issue in the UK seven years ago because the environmental factors were not embraced at the same time as the technology.
Fifthly, 95 per cent. of population growth in the next generation will be in cities. Sixthly, we are confronted by massive problems of biological invasion through trade, air passengers, military mobilisation and mail. Some 54 million air passengers enter the United States, and 180,000 are biologically infested. Of the 80 million Mexican road passengers, 201,000 are biologically infested. Of 40 million Mexican foot passengers, 55,000 are infested. Of 95 million road passengers from Canada, 322,000 are biologically infested. Four per cent. of parcel mail is infested.
Air passenger growth of 15 per cent. means that passengers may be a much larger problem than freight, although the Asian long-haul—I mean longhorn—beetle, which is the greatest current threat in the UK, enters in wooden pallets that must be replaced by plastic. The Mediterranean fruit fly has already been eradicated 17 times in California at a cost of $111 million, but climate change can alter the entire global map of Mediterranean fruit fly incidence.
Seventhly, cloud distribution, with its uncertainties, could have twice the impact of CO2. We do not yet understand the basic science and we need much more understanding of water vapour in cloud water feedback. Eighthly, few ecological experiments are taking place.

The soil experiments in the ecotron under the auspices of the National Environmental Research Council are demonstrating how much we still have to learn. I do not want to enter the debate on soil and genetically modified foods, but soil is a Cinderella and I believe that we have no soil legislation. The ecotron experiments show how effects vary markedly depending on whether the CO2 is ambient or elevated.
Finally, let me mention three unrelated public policy issues that emphasise the complexity and consequences of these matters. First, the Master of the Rolls is interested in the establishment of an environmental court. It may be imagined that such a court could survive with a handful of environmental experts, but a minimum of a dozen would be required.
Secondly, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs will meet in private this afternoon to discuss the problem of fuel smuggling into Northern Ireland. The facts are stark. The terms of Kyoto mean that the UK has a reduction target of 12.5 per cent., while the European Union average is 8 per cent. The Republic of Ireland need not reduce at all, but can increase by 13 per cent., making a 25 per cent. difference between the Irish and ourselves. It is no wonder that there is so massive a discrepancy between fuel taxes in the two jurisdictions.
Smuggling is a natural consequence, and law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland are being turned into law-breakers unless they wish to go out of business. I say gently to the Minister that the Government's response currently verges on the casual as the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Office seem to seek to distance themselves from the predicament, implying that the problem is the other Department's responsibility. So much for joined-up Government.
My third point is a related tax matter. We are all going to be deluged soon with the views of industries on the climate levy. I have not been subjected to any briefings yet, but I suspect that one conclusion that will emerge is that there is a limit to how far industry can carry that particular freight. Although the Government are reluctant to tax us as individuals, if they wish to change behaviour, they will have to consider taxing individuals at last.
Finally, I pay tribute to Imperial college in my constituency, which has assembled 120 academic staff dealing with such issues, with more than 1,000 students, of whom more than half are postgraduate. MSc students can take a shot at addressing the integrated problems of a green society in 2050 after 10 elaborate panel sessions. As an Oxonian, I am necessarily sad that Imperial has temporarily overtaken Oxford as a university; but as its constituency Member I am intensely proud of its contribution, some of which was generously made to me in preparation for this debate.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: It is always a delight to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whose contributions are immensely enjoyable. As a scientist, I wish that all non-scientists were as well informed as him. I shall go to my bed tonight wiser for knowing what a lustrum is.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for making this debate possible. I congratulate him on his remarks with almost all of which I agreed. The one with which I did not agree I shall deal with later. I have four brief points.
First, climate change is happening. It does not matter why but it is. One might argue that it is due to cyclical effects or greenhouse gases. One might be a proponent of chaos theory and believe that it is caused by a butterfly flapping its wings a hundred years ago, but the fact is that it is inevitable and it will affect us, so we had better start planning for its effects over at least the next two generations. By planning, I mean starting to adapt for the inevitable changes. Clinicians, architects, planners and agriculturalists must get involved in the debate to work out the shape of the world in the next 50 years. Politicians and aid workers must focus on the inevitable changes around the world.
Secondly, the weight of the evidence suggests that greenhouse gas production is linked to the fact of climate change. When they see an animal squashed in the road, most people assume that it was hit by a car without needing to see the car doing the damage. Similarly, the weight of the evidence suggests that greenhouse gases are producing climate change. The wise man, or wise politician, therefore starts to take account of that fact and to plan practical strategies for dealing with it. The American auto industry can object as much as it likes; it can argue that climate change is caused by cyclical effects if it wishes—but the weight of evidence suggests that we should address the issue.
Thirdly, the public like to talk about green issues and watch green documentaries. They may even be prepared to recycle a few bottles and newspapers, but they have shown little sign of being seriously prepared to change their behaviour to address green issues. The previous Government introduced the fuel escalator, which this Government have rightly continued. I have asked a series of parliamentary questions and dug some information out of the Library on car use, car ownership, miles driven and petrol consumption over the past 10 years. There is not the slightest evidence that the public have changed their driving or petrol consumption habits one iota over that time. There is no correlation with price or the highlighting of green issues in the political arena. According to the evidence in the public domain, not one fewer gallon of petrol has been consumed, not a mile fewer driven and not one lower fuel consumption car bought.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) was with me in America a year ago. Does the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) agree that the American approach, of producing cleaner cars, is the way forward because taxes have not persuaded people not to drive?

Dr. Ladyman: I agree. Cleaner cars are vital and must be encouraged. I recommend that the Minister urgently consider the work on fuel cells of the company Zevco, not least because it has promised to produce them in my constituency if its developments are successful. The Government will have to change from taxes such as road fuel duty to more direct and huge taxes on dirty cars with high petrol consumption to force people to buy smaller, more economical cars. We must consider road charges because if people can see a more direct link between the money that goes out of their pockets and the miles that they drive, they may be more willing to take account of such issues.
Fourthly, given that climate change is happening, that we believe that greenhouse gases are involved and that the public are unwilling to change their habits, we must come up with more practical strategies to reduce greenhouse gas production. I have reached my difference with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. I believe that one of the most practical things that we can do is to increase our nuclear energy production. I can see no alternative. No single change that we could make could so dramatically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the air.

Mr. Chaytor: If the debate is shifting towards the role of nuclear power in responding to climate change, how does my hon. Friend propose that the additional waste that would be produced by its expansion be handled, given that we have not got a clue what to do with the mountains of waste generated over the past 40 years?

Dr. Ladyman: I disagree with my hon. Friend's last point. We have got a clue. Scientists have suggested a range of waste strategies but the nature of the debate has not allowed us to acknowledge the fact that safe tools are available if we have the political will to use them. A kilowatt of nuclear energy produces 4g of carbon dioxide, but a kilowatt of gas energy 446g, of oil energy 818g, and of coal energy 955g.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: As an engineer—mechanical, electrical and civil—I have a vested interest in my hon. Friend's observations. The folly of his argument is to pretend that emissions resulting from nuclear energy justify expansion of the industry. That is misleading, because one of the problems that we are struggling with is the life cycle of the energies available. Life cycle analysis of nuclear energy production shows that its problems far exceed anything from renewable forms of energy. To take only one aspect or benefit of an industry is to mislead the House as to the absolute benefit of that source.

Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, but the practical benefits and possibilities of using renewable energies are exaggerated. For example, we can calculate the amount of energy that can be extracted from the wind—even whether we can extract 100 per cent. of it—and work out how many wind generators we would need to produce a certain amount of energy. We know what the polluting effects of tidal energy are. If one takes the energy out of the tides, the sediment settles and that can be as polluting to marine life as any oil slick. There are practical limitations to renewable energies.
I put it to my hon. Friends that a 10 per cent. increase—from the current 30 per cent. to 40 per cent.—in the amount of energy that we generate from nuclear power would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide entering our atmosphere in the UK by about 20 million tonnes a year. That would meet our Kyoto guidelines in one fell swoop. We cannot ignore that possibility. However, I do not propose that we act immediately and that we start tomorrow and force it on the public.

Mr. Chaytor: In relation to that theoretical 10 per cent. increase in nuclear energy and its impact on the reduction


of emissions, has my hon. Friend calculated how much that 10 per cent. increase would add to our existing plutonium stockpile?

Dr. Ladyman: I have not made that calculation.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) another reason why the Government should reply to the House of Lords recommendation that there should be an engineered deep repository? In his winding-up speech, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could refer to the House of Lords recommendation and to what the Government's attitude is likely to be—at least in respect of timing.

Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the issues on which we need an answer.
However, I do not propose forcing matters on the public. I propose that we open our minds to the possibility that a solution is ready for practical implementation. We should start to have a full debate with the public on that issue. We need unprecedented openness from the industry and from scientists. As someone who began his scientific career working on a reactor site and who also did his postgraduate degree on a reactor site, I have a familiarity with the industry that other right hon. and hon. Members may not have.
When I did my research, I worked seven days a week-like most PhD students. I used to climb happily over the security fence and work alone in the reactor hall and the laboratories—that was in the early 1970s, which were simpler times. My student friends used to do the same. We knew what we were doing and felt confident about it and confident about the technology. People who work in the industry have that degree of familiarity and find it difficult to understand why other people cannot see the benefits that are available from it.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most people are quite happy to sail 20 miles across the channel, or travel under it, to France, where there are about 20 nuclear sites? The people of France are not suffering any devastating down side from that; indeed, they are probably doing rather well for cheap energy.

Dr. Ladyman: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. My constituents may not realise that they live about 25 miles over the water from those reactors. So far, they have fortunately suffered no side effects.
I want that degree of familiarity with the debate and the issues to register more widely in the public domain. We could then make a sensible and objective decision as to whether we want to increase nuclear power as a percentage of our overall energy strategy. I offer that idea to the Minister as one suggestion for what we might do. Let us start talking again about that issue and put it back on the agenda. Let us consider whether it can be part of the package of measures that we introduce in the future.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: The debate has been extremely interesting. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on initiating it on this timely occasion. He put a number of questions that

he hoped that the Minister would answer when he winds up. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) hoped that the Minister would ad lib a bit in order to respond properly to the debate. Some additional matters have now been brought to the Minister's attention to which I hope that he will be able to respond, because some significant issues have been raised. Perhaps we need to continue the debate in a wider context, as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) requested.
Hon. Members who have spoken so far seem to agree that climate change is real, dangerous and preventable—or at least containable. Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Government's input to the international scene—for example, at the Kyoto and Buenos Aires conferences and in the plethora of reviews and consultation documents that have been published since. There have been so many reviews that, as an energy spokesman, one needs a special wheelbarrow to carry them around in.
Although I welcome those reviews, I point out that the missing element is any consequence from them, so I add a further question to those that have already been put to the Minister: how soon can we expect real policy initiatives and changes to be introduced to implement the ideas in the reviews? I remind the Minister that the target for emissions was to achieve a reduction by 2010 on the baseline of 1990. We are now halfway through that period and, if we need legislation—as we undoubtedly will—together with new taxes, new instructions to the regulators and a public information campaign, all those will take time. Time is leaking away and the opportunities to reach even the legal target—never mind the Labour manifesto target—are becoming harder to achieve.
In some ways the Government have gone the wrong way since they began to take action on climate change. They have slowed down the dash for gas in electricity generation. That means that the rate at which we are making carbon emissions savings has slowed down and will slow down more. The Government have cut value added tax on domestic fuel; that has the consequence that more people—especially those in low-income households—will be able to afford to burn more fuel. Indeed, that is why the cut was made. One can well understand why that was done; I welcome action to relieve fuel poverty. However, the Government have not, at the same time, reduced VAT on insulation and other technologies that could prevent the wasteful consumption of fuel.
The Government have talked about an integrated transport policy, but we understand from the Deputy Prime Minister that there is no time in the legislative timetable to introduce such a policy. At present, there is no money for that. As the hon. Member for Bury, North pointed out, the Government have stood idly by while private Members' Bills that could have helped have been blocked. In the case of the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill, the Government offered active spoken support, but they rejected the Bill.
I urge the Government to consider three sectors in which we need to make progress. The first is traffic and transport, which contribute about one quarter of the carbon emissions in this country. It is good to hear that, at speaking engagements throughout the country, the Minister for the Environment and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions continue


to express a commitment to road traffic reduction—that is, an absolute reduction in road traffic. However, in the House, the words have been more woolly and imprecise. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will be able to say that what was in the Labour party's manifesto and what Ministers say in the country to sympathetic audiences about an absolute reduction in road traffic remain the Government's commitment. I hope that we shall hear that said clearly in the House.
One of the paradoxes of the debate on climate change is that it focuses to such an extent on transport and traffic, when such factors contribute only one quarter of the UK's carbon emissions. We spend much time worrying about traffic taxes, road pricing and similar measures when we know not only that such measures are unpopular with the public, as the hon. Member for South Thanet indicated, but that they are unlikely to be effective. However, there is little political debate or policy preparation on other major sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom.
Chief among those is electricity generation, which is responsible for a greater proportion of carbon dioxide emissions in this country than traffic—some 30 per cent. I urge the Minister to produce plans and a timetable for a comprehensive energy policy. In the context of the renewables review, I have submitted evidence to the Department of Trade and Industry on the way in which I believe we should proceed. I shall spend a couple of minutes detailing that approach and exploring the "nuclear versus the rest" debate, which has been aired this morning.
We have to develop a strong conservation option: we must stop wasting power and electricity. Such a policy is feasible and the Government should set a target that looks further ahead than 2010. Much of the target setting to 2010 consists of a push here and a squeeze there without any fundamental changes being contemplated. The assumption appears to be that, come 2010, we will reach a plateau beyond which it is not necessary to go; but in fact, after 2010, we shall have to take accelerating and increasingly stiff measures to speed up carbon reduction—which means that we need to develop a strong conservation option.
We have to stabilise and then reduce overall energy use—for example, the use of electric power—while retaining the country's competitiveness and the quality of life of our population. There is nothing difficult about that—we need only apply existing technologies and techniques. Many technical assessments state that half the energy used in the domestic sector is wasted and could be saved by the application of simple, state-of-the-art and currently available measures. Were we to reduce domestic energy consumption by 50 per cent., we would achieve more than could be achieved through the nuclear option.
In addition to conservation, which by 2050 could result in a reduction to only about 70 per cent. of current electricity consumption while maintaining competitiveness and fully implementing any new technology that can be dreamt of, we have to develop a strong renewables option. Using existing, known technologies, we could reach 25 per cent. of electricity generation by use of renewables by 2020, and 50 per cent. by 2050. We should try to achieve that.
We should look at the international scene and learn from other countries that are ahead of us in this respect—countries that currently export renewables technology. Japan has already been mentioned, but I shall refer to Denmark, which supplies 60 per cent. of the world's wind turbine market, thereby enabling both the generation of electricity from renewable sources internationally and the creation of jobs in Denmark. Countries in the developing world, such as China and India, will use increasing amounts of energy, but supplies of coal and oil are not inexhaustible and nor is the atmosphere. Such countries already invest significant sums in renewables: my information is that China already spends more on renewables than the whole of western Europe. A strong indigenous renewables industry would not only be able to exploit such wide open markets, but would help us to achieve our domestic targets.

Dr. Ladyman: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's argument in respect of renewables, but are not his figures on potential energy consumption in 2010 based on the assumption that, in 2010, we shall be producing the same sort of things as we produce today, but doing so more efficiently? Is it not true that neither he, nor I, nor anyone else can predict the shape of industry in 2010, what sorts of things we shall be producing, or whether the processes of producing those things will consume large amounts of energy?

Mr. Stunell: Yes, I entirely agree—in this area of policy, almost nothing is predictable from decade to decade. For example, 15 years ago, no one would have predicted that gas would become the preferred fuel for electricity generation. The circumstances might change in future, but even within the existing decision-making framework, technologies are available that could contribute to a solution.
In any case, I suspect that we will all be living in houses, not only in 2010, but in 2050, which is the time scale I am envisaging. There are savings there to be made in the domestic sector, no matter how many computers or unimaginable electronic devices people have. If we act along the lines that I have set out and achieve 50 per cent. of electricity production through renewables, then instead of producing the current annual total of 42 million tonnes of carbon emissions from electricity generation, we could get that figure down to about 10 million tonnes a year. We should be trying to achieve that.
I am not sure whether this is the right debate to discuss the nuclear option, its feasibility and viability. However, I should like to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North—that for 20 or 30 years the nuclear industry was given every pound it wanted for research and development in the search for the perfect, cheap fuel that would save civilisation. That the industry failed to find that fuel is at least open for discussion. Had similar sums been invested in other technologies, we might be in a better position today.
The remarks made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster about wind power and the environment were absolutely true, but it must be emphasised that every energy-generating technology, including the existing electricity generation and distribution network, has an environmental impact of some sort. There are about 100,000 steel electricity pylons in this country; temporarily disregarding the engineering


or the science of doing so, by putting a 1 MW wind turbine on each pylon, we could generate three times this country's current energy consumption. Even though we might have stopped noticing the environmental impact of current technologies, it does not mean that impact does not exist.
I hope the Minister will tell us today that the Government are going to be bold: that at the hard end they will examine taxation and legislation, that at the soft end they will consider regulation and information, and that they will work hard to change popular culture. I am far more optimistic about our ability to change popular culture than the hon. Member for South Thanet. Everybody now wears a seat belt, not because that is the law, but because popular culture has accepted the wearing of seat belts; and everyone is now so keen to recycle paper that the market is permanently swamped and we cannot get rid of the stuff. Once people accept that doing something is good, it can catch on remarkably quickly.
We need regulation and we must ensure that new energy supply companies have strong rules. For example, it would be good if ESCOs administered home MOTs for energy wastage, or if they were required to provide two-way meters so that micro-renewables could be applied at point of use. Many things could be done and in my evidence to the renewables review I made some suggestions to the Government.
I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will support private Members' legislation that is neutral and has a low fiscal impact. I also hope that the Government will introduce a real carbon tax and reinvest that money in renewables and conservation. They should also get the regulators to impress on energy companies the need for conservation and renewables and should work with others to inform the public and to change popular culture. The debate has raised several questions and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them at least.

Mr. Simon Burns: I thank the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important issue and for instigating an intelligent and thought-provoking debate. In this country, we are fortunate that the environment, and the specific issue of climate change, are high up the political agenda, unlike in certain other countries. That is due originally to a speech by Baroness Thatcher in the late 1980s, to the work of my right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) at the Rio summit, and—in fairness—to the efforts of this Government, through the work of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment in Kyoto and in Buenos Aires.
Some criticisms have been made that we hear much rhetoric and less action, and they were echoed modestly today by some hon. Members. While reviews and consultation are important, it is time—after two years in government—for action. No doubt the Minister will be able to elaborate on the Government's plans for the next two years.
The policies on climate change of the previous Government and of this Government have focused on prevention. They have set targets for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and that is welcome.

Indeed, the Government in their manifesto went beyond the requirements to which we signed up in Kyoto, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response to the questions from the hon. Members for Bury, North and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) about a possible shift in the 20 per cent. target.
I wish to raise the issue of adaptation, which is as important as prevention but does not figure as much in the public mind. We could take three approaches to the catastrophic problem facing our planet. We could accept the changes and take no action, but no one in his right mind is prepared to be complacent and take that approach. I have already mentioned the prevention approach, which the previous Government and this Government have sought to undertake through our international commitments and by encouraging other nations to play their part.
Reference has also been made to the United States. I welcome the fact that the US Government had a more positive approach at Buenos Aires, but I have serious misgivings because the US Government are not the US Congress. Any hon. Members who have had dealings with American Congressmen will probably have felt that they were dealing with Neanderthals when it came to the question of climate change and its environmental impact. That is more to do with internal domestic politics in the districts of those Congressmen, who are not prepared to show the courage that Governments in this country have shown in the past decade, and more must be done in that area.
The third approach is the adaptation of human and natural systems to protect society and individuals from the impact of what is happening. The 1996 climate change impacts review group report contains several key responses, and more should be done to ensure that we can adapt to living in a greenhouse world. We must develop more ability to cope with extreme weather-related events, such as storms, floods, landslides and the erosion of our coasts. We must ensure that we have a cohesive policy for managing agriculture to respond to the changing conditions.
It is also crucial to safeguard the public against disease, heatstroke, food poisoning and tanning, with all the problems the latter causes for skin, such as cancer. We must ensure maximum conservation of water resources, especially in the south-east of this country, and we must encourage more exciting and innovative approaches to construction and urban design to minimise the effects of increased temperatures, higher wind speeds and flooding, and to improve energy conservation and the warmth of homes.
Several hon. Members rightly drew attention to the four relevant private Members' Bills before the House. I fully support the ethos behind those Bills and I hope that they will reach the statute book, if necessary through the use of Government time. Energy efficiency, the reduction—preferably the abolition—of fuel poverty, combined heat and light and, as many hon. Members have mentioned, renewable sources of energy are all important. I thank the hon. Member for Bury, North again for what has been, for the House of Commons, a very intelligent debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member


for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing this debate on a subject that, as he emphasised, is probably the most important environmental issue facing the world today, and on the knowledgeable and skilful way in which he presented the issues. He demonstrated clearly why he is widely recognised as having great expertise on this subject.
I shall begin by making a few general points about the action the Government are taking to tackle the threat of climate change and then I shall respond briefly to some of the points that have been raised this morning. I acknowledge the approach of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in emphasising the quality of this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown a serious and intelligent approach to the issue. My only difficulty is that the complexity and scale of the issues that have been raised will make it impossible for me to do justice to them in just over 10 minutes. I shall do my best, however.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) challenged me to adopt a Fox approach rather than a Burke approach. I am delighted to hear him supporting the radical rather than the Conservative, and I will do my best. As he will recognise, because he was a Minister for many years dealing with issues of huge importance, certain subjects must be put on the record clearly without extemporising to the degree that some hon. Members would like.
I loved the right hon. Gentleman's references to the problems created by the growth of air traffic and the pests that can now travel from one country to another. He made a delightful slip of the tongue when he referred not to the longhorn beetle but to the long-haul beetle—which is a further illustration of the problem. I noted also the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to Imperial college and his slight ambivalence at the fact that its rising academic success has meant that it has surpassed the record of his former university. I am delighted to inform the House that my former university, Cambridge, remains ahead of both Imperial college and Oxford university and is renowned in the field of science.
Scientific evidence on the rate of climate change is becoming clearer all the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North emphasised, records show that, globally, seven of the past 10 years have been the hottest since records began in 1860. Global surface temperatures are increasing at a rate that will exceed anything that has been seen since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The world's most authoritative scientists on the intergovernmental panel on climate change have concluded that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate. There is no doubt that it is getting warmer and there is also no doubt that man-made emissions are contributing to that rise in temperature. This means that, unless we act now, we can expect more flooding, more severe winter gales, more storms and more droughts. The human, social and economic costs could be extremely severe.
The Government have pledged to do what we can to ensure that the impact of climate change is reduced as much as possible. We are playing a leading role in international negotiations, and I thank hon. Members on

both sides of the House for acknowledging the Government' s attempts to work with all other countries in this field to achieve satisfactory international agreements.
The Rio earth summit in 1992 demonstrated an international consensus on the need to act, when 154 countries signed the United Nations framework convention on climate change. In Kyoto in 1997, industrialised countries went further, agreeing legally binding targets for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. That was an important and historic step. Of course, we must now move from agreement to implementation. International negotiations are focused on working up the rules and procedures needed for the effective implementation of the Kyoto protocol.
In Buenos Aires last November, the parties agreed a detailed work programme—the Buenos Aires action plan—that sets out all the issues that still need to be resolved. They include: the design of the "Kyoto mechanisms"; the definition of guidelines for reporting emissions and monitoring compliance; and procedures for addressing cases of non-compliance. The United Kingdom is keen to ensure that we make real progress on all those issues and that the negotiations do not get bogged down in a sterile debate between developed and developing countries.
My hon. Friend raised the difficult and important issue of contraction and convergence. It is an interesting idea, but at Buenos Aires neither the developed nor developing countries were ready to sign up to the kinds of targets envisaged by this approach. It will be difficult to match up, given the widely differing conditions in different countries—I think particularly of differing weather patterns and temperatures, which can have a profound effect on the energy mix required in any country—and very real difficulties will need to be factored into any converged emissions target. The idea of contraction and convergence is likely to make an important contribution to the climate change debate in future, however, when negotiations take place on how further greenhouse gas reductions may be achieved equitably. I hope that that is a helpful response to my hon. Friend's comments.
Although the Kyoto protocol sets targets only for developed countries, we should not underestimate the steps that developing countries are also taking to reduce their emissions. Many developing countries are taking domestic action to improve transport technologies and energy efficiency, all of which can be only beneficial to climate change. The United Kingdom is working to engage key developing countries, such as India and China, in a constructive dialogue about how they can build on existing domestic action.
However, developing countries rightly want to see that the developed world is serious about delivering on its promises. There are many options open to developed countries, including the use of the Kyoto mechanisms, to enable them to meet their targets cost effectively. However, we firmly believe that domestic action must form the main means of meeting our Kyoto commitments. I think it will help the House if I outline what we are trying to do in this field.
We have led the way by going beyond our legally binding Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. reduction and setting our much more challenging 20 per cent. domestic goal for reductions in CO2 emissions rather than the basket of greenhouse gases. In response to my hon. Friend


and other hon. Members who raised this question, I can confirm that that remains the Government's goal—although all hon. Members will recognise that it is an extremely challenging target. Unless we are successful in implementing the range of policies that I shall describe, that goal will be even harder to achieve.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) asked several questions about the integrated transport policy. He recognised that that policy is critical to achieving significant reductions in CO2 emissions. Changes to transport taxation announced by the Chancellor that are designed to cut emissions will make a contribution. I refer not only to the continuation of the fuel duty escalator but to a new vehicle excise duty system that benefits those driving smaller, more efficient cars, and changes to the company car tax system designed to remove incentives for people to drive more and to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.
Speaking as Minister for London, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have introduced powers in the Greater London Authority Bill to enable the mayor of London to introduce a congestion charging and non-residential parking scheme designed not only to discourage the unnecessary use of motor vehicles—particularly in congested areas—but to allow the hypothecated revenue from those charges to be used for specific investment in public transport, to make it easier for people to travel other than by private car. We are taking important practical steps to give effect to the integrated transport White Paper strategy.
The utility reform Bill will assist the Government by including powers to set energy efficiency standards of performance and requiring the gas and electricity companies to encourage and assist customers to use less energy. Meanwhile, we hope that the energy regulator, using the powers under the existing legislation, will continue the successful electricity EESOP scheme and extend it to help gas consumers. The radically improved fuel poverty programme that we announced recently—to which several hon. Members referred—will help to ensure that old people, the disabled, children and people with health difficulties have properly insulated and heated homes. The measure aims primarily to tackle fuel poverty, but it will contribute to reducing carbon emissions in certain cases.
I stress that the programme's main focus is to help those people who suffer seriously from fuel poverty to enjoy higher standards of comfort. I make no apologies for measures that are designed to help the poor to keep warm. It is not acceptable that many people die during the winter because they cannot keep warm. That is a major social responsibility that we must tackle.

Mr. Dalyell: That is peanuts compared to the nuclear issue. Will the Minister comment about the vitally important deeply engineered repository?

Mr. Raynsford: I was about to come to that. My hon. Friend will recognise that there are a wide range of issues, and I do not accept that the points that I have raised are "peanuts". If we succeed in reducing carbon dioxide emission from motor vehicles, in the home and in buildings through more energy efficient measures and better building regulations—we are reviewing part L of the building regulations—that will be a significant achievement.
The climate change levy will encourage businesses to use energy more efficiently. We recognise the particular concerns of energy-intensive industries and offer the prospect of a significantly lower rate of levy to those sectors that enter into agreements to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions. We are consulting specifically on that issue—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North referred—and we are working to ensure a constructive approach to combined heat and power and renewables as part of the package. That approach is under consultation so I cannot give a more definitive answer today.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to the importance of changing people's attitudes. That is a key element in the Government's £7 million "Are you doing your bit?" publicity campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the Government's response to the House of Lords recommendations on the storage of nuclear waste. The Government will respond to that in due course, and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to write to my hon. Friend about it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We shall now move on to the next debate.

Constitutional Reform (England)

11 am

Mr. James Gray: I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this debate, which is crucial for the United Kingdom. This morning, however, I speak more particularly as the Member of Parliament for North Wiltshire. It is worth my admitting, before anyone else points it out, that I am a Scot. I was born, bred and educated in Scotland, as I have already pointed out in one or two debates on devolution. Now, I speak not as a Scot but as someone who has spent more than half his life in England. I speak as an honorary Englishman, and as a Member who represents an English constituency.
This debate is vital for my constituents because, in the past two years of constitutional debate and the headlong rush towards devolution for Scotland and Wales, not a word has been said about the English question. England is a slumbering giant who is only now beginning to wake up and think about the English question.
I am delighted to see in his place this morning the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who, 20 or 30 years ago, first raised all these issues in the famous West Lothian question. Unfortunately, he will have to leave the debate later, so we shall not hear his views on the English question, which would be to the point. The West Lothian question remains on the table, unanswered. The Labour Government, in their fixation on Scotland and Wales, have not even tried to address that question and its consequences for England.
Even the recent report by the Select Committee on Procedure, which is grandly entitled "The Procedural Consequences of Devolution", does not mention the English question in its many hundreds of pages. It makes no attempt whatsoever to address the consequences of devolution for my constituents in England. That is a shame, because there is a variety of procedural and structural solutions to the West Lothian question which should have been addressed, and which should be addressed now that Scotland and Wales are, so to speak, out of the way.
Those solutions include a full English Parliament. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who recently produced a book called "The English Parliament". If she is lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will undoubtedly want to expand on that option. Another procedural option is curiously called the in-and-out method. I shall not attempt to deal with all the various options this morning because this is not an academic lecture. We are not discussing the various constitutional possibilities available to us, although I look forward to hearing my right hon. and hon. Friends' solutions to the West Lothian question later in the debate.
The important point is the principle that, since devolution, Members of the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood speak and vote exclusively on Scottish business; to a lesser degree, Members of the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff speak and vote on Welsh matters, and Northern Ireland Members in Stormont will speak and vote on Northern Irish matters. Why, then, should Scottish and Welsh Members come here and speak and vote on English matters? That position is totally illogical and unsustainable. Why should the fate of my constituents in North Wiltshire depend on the peculiar parliamentary

arithmetic that includes those people who have chosen to set up their own Parliament in Edinburgh and Assembly in Wales? There is no logic in that, and it is important that this Parliament now addresses that question.
If the solution is that English Members of Parliament come to Westminster to speak and vote exclusively on English matters, as they did before 1707, so be it. That is my personal preference. That would be the price that Scotland and Wales must pay for devolution. If we have English MPs in this place speaking and voting on English matters, there will be important constitutional consequences that we must start to address. Those consequences are the prime reason that the Labour party will not even consider that solution.
First, it is extremely likely that the party in power—the majority party—in England would be different from the majority party in the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): indicated dissent.

Mr. Gray: The Minister shakes his head. He would be right to say that in this Parliament, of course, there would be a Labour majority in England as there is in Scotland. I shall return to his challenge in a moment.
Labour's fear is that there would be a Conservative majority in England, as there has been for about 90 per cent. of this century, even when there has been an overall Labour majority provided by the Scottish Labour MPs. While we have one Parliament, one Government and one constitution, we in North Wiltshire do not mind being dominated by Labour MPs and a Labour Government even if there is a Conservative majority in England. However, the position is quite different if Scotland and Wales have their own Parliament and Assembly respectively. Why should my constituents in North Wiltshire then be dominated by a Labour Government if there is a Conservative majority in England?
That brings me back to the Minister's indication of dissent a moment ago. If he believes, in his arrogant new Labour manner, that new Labour will have a majority in England for all time, I put to him not the West Lothian question but the Chippenham challenge: he must allow an English Government to be set up, based on the majority of Members of Parliament in England, as he appears to be confident that Labour will dominate that Government as well as the UK Government. Let the Minister put his money where his mouth is and agree to my proposal.
It is clear that if we had English Members of Parliament speaking and voting on English matters in Westminster, the UK Government would not fall every time they lost a Division in the English Parliament. They would want to maintain their power over the UK. The majority in England would effectively form an English Government. Perhaps an English Parliament is too grand an expression, but we could have an English Government. Certain Departments of State, particularly those that have no interest in Scotland and Wales, would then be answerable to English Ministers sitting in this place as part of an English Government, who would match those in Scotland and Wales.
If there were any difference in parity between the English and UK Governments, the position would be no more complex than it would if we had a Conservative


Government in the UK—as many Conservative Members hope and expect that we shall in two years—and a Labour Government in Holyrood or a Labour-dominated Assembly in Cardiff. The stresses and strains between Holyrood and Westminster, which have so often been pointed out by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, are precisely the same as those that would exist if we had a Labour Government nationally and an English Government.
The second problem of which the Labour Government are well aware, and the second reason that they will not even begin to accept my proposed solution, relates to the Barnett formula. If we had an English Government at Westminster, how could we justify the fact that the Government spend £4,792 per head in Scotland, compared to £3,897 in England? Why is less spent on the English than on the Scots? Why does Scotland annually receive a subsidy of £7 billion, or £1,000 per head of population?
That is fine while we are one nation with one Government and one Parliament. The richer parts of the nation must subsidise the poorer parts. I am only too pleased that that is the case. That would remain the case for the north-east and north-west of England and, perhaps, Devon and Cornwall. My relatively prosperous constituents in North Wiltshire should pay their taxes towards subsidising the less prosperous parts of the nation, but not when the less prosperous parts are making their own decisions. Why should my constituents subsidise decisions made in Holyrood over which I have no control and in which I have no say?
The Institute for Fiscal Studies considered that question carefully and said that if we ended the subsidy to Scotland, the base rate of income tax in Scotland would be 48p in the pound. If so—I should regret it from the point of view of my mother and my relations and friends who live in Scotland—so be it. The Scots will be realising for the first time the true cost of the Parliament with which I for one so often disagreed.
If there is such a solution to the West Lothian question, a number of interesting consequences arise will from it. The first I call the Airdrie and Shotts question. If the Government accept my solution, why on earth should Scottish Members of Parliament—in this case the Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell)—have a say in London over English transport matters? The right hon. Lady cannot do so similarly in Holyrood. She has no influence over Scottish transport—she is not allowed to have any such influence. She is specifically excluded from talking about Scottish transport matters, but may pontificate on what English truckers and drivers must do. What possible justification can there be for that? I cannot go to Holyrood and pontificate on Scottish transport, so why should she do so on matters concerning my truckers in Wiltshire? Representing a Scottish constituency, she has no say whatever over transport matters in Scotland.

Mr. David Maclean: The situation is even worse than that. The matter is not just one of the Minister for Transport pontificating. She is presiding over a roads budget in England which the Government have drastically slashed. The M6 in the north of my constituency, just south of the Scottish border, is a good case in point—an important piece of road has not been built. At the same time, the right hon. Lady, as a

Scottish Member of Parliament, is benefiting from a Scottish roads budget that is 24 per cent. greater. That is a fundamental injustice.

Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend makes a very sound point. The Prime Minister will shortly have an opportunity to correct that wrong. If he is to avoid the wrath of the English, he must consider in the reshuffle that is coming up whether it will be acceptable for Scottish Members of Parliament to remain as Ministers in England.
There is a slightly broader question, too. Why should Scottish Members of Parliament have such a disproportionate effect in the Cabinet? Around the Cabinet table, there are at the moment 22 Cabinet Ministers. Five of them represent Scottish seats and a further two happen to be Scots representing constituencies here in England. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security are all Scots who sit here in England and talk about English matters. The Scots amount to 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, but are represented by 33 per cent. of the Cabinet. Why should that be?
While we were one nation, with one Parliament and one Government, that was of course acceptable. As a Scot who is proud to represent an English seat, I am only too delighted that my nation has had a disproportionate effect on running the world over the past 200 or 300 years. However, now that the Scots have gone their own way in Holyrood, how can we possibly justify the fact that 33 per cent. of the Cabinet that runs the United Kingdom are Scots, and the English are ignored?

Mr. John Bercow: In addition to the inequities that my hon. Friend has described, does he agree that Members of this House representing Scottish constituencies, who also serve in the Scottish Parliament and are therefore twin-trackers, should not be allowed to vote in this House so as to advantage their Scottish constituents and the cause of the Scottish Parliament, and in the process disadvantage the vast majority of constituencies represented in this House? Is that not palpably wrong?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point on the arithmetic of the number of Members of Parliament here and their prospective jobs. If he will forgive me, I shall reply to his point in a moment.
Before I lose sight of the way in which Scots run the United Kingdom, I for once want to quote Jeremy Paxman—not usually a friend of anything that the Conservative party says, although on this occasion what he said was quite sensible. He said:
An Englishman can be defined as someone who lives on an island in the North Sea governed by Scots.
That may work for one Parliament, but the moment that there is a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, as is now so, it is no longer acceptable. England, this morning, is beginning to turn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned the consequences for Back Benchers in this place. There are indeed consequences for Back Benchers' roles. At the moment, every Scottish Member of Parliament represents about 54,000 people,


and every English Member of Parliament represents about 69,000 people. I am particularly fortunate because I represent 77,000 people in North Wiltshire. I therefore represent about one and a half times as many people as Scots Members of Parliament do.
The Government realised that fact during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, and wrote into the Act that as soon as time permits—I believe well into the next century, following the next boundary commission report—Scots Members of Parliament will move to parity with English Members. They will have to represent 69,000 people, and perhaps 77,000 people in one or two places, as we do. Why on earth should that be? What possible logic is there in a Scottish Member of Parliament who, due to the proportional representation system that has prevailed in Scotland, is helped out by two or three Members of the Scottish Parliament, doing the same job as I do single-handedly for my constituents in England?
I deal with education, health, the environment, transport and all such issues. I deal with every parliamentary issue on behalf of my 77,000 constituents, whereas there are four Members of Parliament for each Scottish constituency, and one deals only with foreign policy, defence and social security. What on earth will these guys in England do all day? Their constituency business will be divided among four people, and much of it will be dealt with in Edinburgh. They may have the Child Support Agency and one or two other constituency bits and pieces to address down here, but they will have nothing to do in most policy areas. How can they justify their time here?
What is more, how can they justify how much they are paid? How can I be paid £47,000 a year to represent 77,000 people on a range of policies, whereas, apparently, they will be paid £47,000 a year to do half or a quarter of my job? I say that slightly tongue in cheek because, of course, they will have the same outgoings as I do, and I would not want some of my friends who are Scottish Members of Parliament at the moment to cease buying my drinks in the bar. Nevertheless, the point behind my remarks is important. Scottish Members of Parliament may sit here, but they do not have a job to do.
Never mind parity, as the Scotland Act allows; what about reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament—the twin-trackers of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham reminded us—perhaps even as far as the number of Members of the European Parliament who represent Scotland, which is currently eight? Perhaps we should generously allow 15 or 20 Scottish MPs to remain here to talk about UK issues, foreign policy and defence. Why should there be parity with the English? There should be significantly fewer constituencies. They wanted their own Parliament, and now that they have it, they must pay the price for it.
The only attempt that the Labour Government have made so far to address the English question has been to come up with the half-baked, half-hearted notion of English regional development agencies and regional assemblies to go with them. The Government hope that that will buy off the West Lothian question and be the magic answer to it. Of course, it is not for a host of reasons—although there are two primary ones.
There is absolutely no appetite in England for regional government. There is no such thing as the south-west of England. Swindon, towards the east of my constituency, is a great deal closer to Paris than it is to Penzance. Gloucester, which is also in the south-west, is closer to Glasgow than to Penzance. If anything, the south-west is Devon and Cornwall, but to include Bournemouth, Swindon and Gloucester in it is simply nonsense. The same of course applies to the south-east, for example. There is no such thing as the south-east; to try to suggest otherwise and that there will be a Parliament for it is nonsense.
There is no appetite for such government; the Government are merely trying to find some way of answering the unanswerable West Lothian question. Anyhow, no one has ever suggested that regional assemblies should have the right to make primary legislation, as the Scottish Parliament does. There is no link between the two forms of government; the proposed regional government is an attempt to fudge the issue.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Such a proposal may be an attempt to fudge the issue, but is it not slightly more sinister? It is very convenient for there to be all these regions, given the Government's intention to create a federal Europe of regions.

Mr. Gray: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I was alarmed the other day to see a European map of Britain on which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were marked, but for England all it said was "Regions of the European Union". The word "England" was not mentioned at all. The truth that is known by all of us from England is that England has as strong an identity and place in the world as either Scotland or Wales, but that we have allowed ourselves to forget it.
It is perfectly healthy, and no form of English nationalism, to remind ourselves of that English identity. Perhaps we should consider moving the May bank holiday, for example, from its absurd position of 1 May, and hold it a week earlier, on 23 April, to celebrate St. George's day. Why not be proud of St. George and the dragon? St. George is as great a hero as St. Andrew or St. David. Shakespeare called England
this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England".
The people of England have quietly watched the Scots and the Welsh go their own way, but now is the time for us to assert our English rights. Our English identity must be recognised, and the unbalanced English constitution must be righted. As G. K. Chesterton put it:
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget.
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
As Churchill said, when he was on the other side of the Chamber:
There is a long-forgotten—nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England.
Now is the time for the House to speak for England.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, as I think that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has made some very interesting points. Although I think that he was a little harsh to say that there has been no response from


the Government to the West Lothian question, it is certainly true that there has been no convincing response to the challenge that is posed by devolution to Scotland and Wales. I should make it clear that I welcome moves to devolution in Scotland and in Wales, but I also recognise that devolution has implications for England, many of which have been touched on by the hon. Gentleman.
One of the contributions towards answering the West Lothian question has to be devolution to the English regions. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire and I disagree on that issue. However, I think that he was right to say that devolution to the English regions will not in itself be an answer to the West Lothian question.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that there is absolutely no appetite for English devolution. A recent MORI poll found that two thirds of voters would like decisions to be made closer to home. We are one of the most centralised nations in the democratic world. Far too much is decided at Westminster and in Whitehall that people would instinctively welcome being decided nearer to home, at a more community level.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Is that not the purpose of local councils?

Mr. Harvey: That is not the purpose of local councils. Local councils are responsible for running public services in their communities.
Although many services in this country are operated on a regional level, those regions are not conterminous from one sphere of public service to another. We have one set of health regions; we have different Departments operating in completely different regions; and we have the media operating in still different regions. Every organisation in this country divides itself to form a regional footprint of one sort or another, and there is absolutely no commonality between them in how they do so. We are almost unique in the democratic world in doing that.
Some people say that because England is small geographically, there is no need for division into the provinces, states or regions into which other countries divide themselves. I appreciate that point, but in England we are trying to organise public services for far greater numbers of people on the basis of a far more centralised footprint than almost any other country in the world. I therefore believe that, over time, there will be more demand for devolution in England.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that, currently, either in his constituency or in mine, there is not a clamour for the creation of a south-west regional parliament.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, as he develops his remarks, whether he would retain parish councils, district councils, county councils and regional councils—plus this place, plus the European Parliament? If so, how would he explain that to his taxpayers?

Mr. Harvey: I have every intention of addressing that issue, and shall come to it in just a few moments.

Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Harvey: No; I shall make a little progress, if I may.
We organise services regionally, but in a very muddled and inconsistent manner. I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that the footprint being used by the Government's regional offices, which is being duplicated for tomorrow's European elections, is simply wrong, and that the boundaries that they use make absolutely no sense. The boundaries are slightly more sensible in the north of England than in the midlands. However, in the south of England, it is sheer nonsense to suggest that one should pass through only two regions in driving from Penzance to Dover, which is a distance equivalent to that from London to Edinburgh. As a result of that nonsense, there is certainly much less support for moving towards regionalism in the south of England than there is in the north.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I very much agree with the Government's moves to establish regional development agencies. My only regret is that the agencies do not have bigger budgets and greater powers. However, I hope that, over time, those will come. Currently, although the RDAs' budgets total about £800 million, all but 10 per cent. of that is simply funds drawn together from schemes that already existed and put under a different form of management.
I recently met the chairman and chief executive of the south-west RDA, which is making good progress in developing an ambitious but realistic economic strategy. Like me, however, I think that people at the RDA are concerned that the scale of their success will be limited by the lack of resources and freedoms available to them.
Regional chambers are developing alongside RDAs. In a sense, the chambers are an embryo of directly elected regional assemblies, which I also welcome. However, at least for the time being, the chambers are nothing more than talking shops. The Deputy Prime Minister has been rather slow in designating chambers as the official bodies that the RDAs must consult, and that has not enhanced the RDAs' credibility. Nevertheless, we are able to see where the Government are beginning to go with the policy.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) that the Government's policy on regional devolution is part of a ghastly plot to do away with the nation state, but believe that it will simply put us on the same basis established by other nation states.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that whenever hon. Members talk about taking powers from this Parliament to other bodies—whether to the European Parliament, regional assemblies or to any other devolved body—they are really talking about depreciating and devaluing the importance of this House of Parliament and the importance and relevance of its Members?

Mr. Harvey: The starting point of my speech was that Britain is too centralised. Therefore, if we decentralise, we shall by definition be taking powers away from this House. Personally, I have no great paranoia about that. In a sense, we are too centralised, and it would be a good thing to decentralise. I think that my constituents would welcome the idea of decisions being made nearer to where they live.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Harvey: No; I shall make more progress, if I may.
I have mentioned the fact that the boundaries are not realistic, and that they should be revisited before we go any further down the devolution path. However, the Government must themselves take the lead in using a common definition of "region", and they should ensure that Departments that currently are not organised according to the regional footprint become so organised. Nevertheless, as I said, that will be only part of the solution to the West Lothian problem, and it cannot be the whole solution.
Neither I nor anyone else would want different English regions to have different criminal laws, different school systems or leaving ages, or completely different health provision systems; and we certainly would not want people in the east midlands to drive on the left, while those in the west midlands drove on the right. Therefore, many important issues will still have to be decided at Westminster in primary legislation. Once certainly cannot say that devolution to the regions is the whole answer to the West Lothian question, because it certainly is not. That brings us to the West Lothian question.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that, in the long term, it is not sustainable for Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament to come to this place to vote on and run English services. The issue will come to a head most particularly when we have a general election with the type of outcome to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is entirely possible that, in a tighter general election, on current party lines, there could be a Labour majority across the United Kingdom, but a Conservative majority in England. I have no difficulty with that. It would not result in a constitutional crisis. The situation would be similar if we had a Conservative majority across the UK and a Labour majority in the Scottish Parliament. We should not be hugely concerned about that.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has been dying to get in, so I shall give him his moment.

Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for charitably giving way. To prevent the House from being enveloped in a fog of confusion, would he care to answer two simple questions? First, does he, individually or on behalf of his party, believe that twin-tracking—or, as some people impolitely call it, double troughing—whereby a Member of this House is also a Member of the Scottish Parliament, is in principle wrong? Secondly, given that he has said that he has no objection to a decentralisation of powers, are we to take it that he objects to the centralisation of powers? If so, will he explain his tergiversation on entry to the euro, which manifestly involves the centralisation of power in the European Union?

Mr. Harvey: I am not sure that entry to the euro has anything to do with constitutional reform in England and the balance between England, Scotland and Wales which we are discussing.
I do not favour a permanent dual mandate, but it is a reasonable interim arrangement when a new body is brought into being. The rules that will not permit that beyond the next round of elections are a sensible balance.
I do not support the ideas of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on the creation of a separately elected English Parliament, but there is nothing wrong with this House sitting in English session, excluding the representatives of Scottish constituencies, when it is discussing English business. Similarly, there is no difficulty with English and Welsh Members sitting together here when English and Welsh matters are being discussed.

Mr. David Davis: rose—

Mr. Harvey: I note the right hon. Gentleman trying to get in, but time is pressing and I am supposed to keep to a time limit, so if he will forgive me I shall not let him in at the moment.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked about the different layers of government. The Government have already said in two or three places that, before any region had a regional assembly, there would have to be unitary systems of local government. I entirely agree. It would be unacceptable for taxpayers to have a district council, a county council and a regional assembly, so unitary systems of local government would be a prerequisite, but I hope that that would not be brought about by means of the ludicrous and farcical commission process that we went through under the previous Government, under the chairmanship of Sir John Banham.
To sum up, we live in the most centralised nation in the world. It is essential to introduce some devolution in England, but that is not a solution to the West Lothian question. It will still be necessary for English Members to sit here alone as an English body when discussing English business.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: When people went to the polling booths at the general election, I am sure that they did not realise that Labour was planning the restructuring of our constitution. The party had no intention of making that clear. Since the election, six constitutional Bills have come before the House, providing for change in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, as well as reform of the Lords and, most significantly, the creation of regional assemblies. Those issues have not been linked in the public mind as a massive change in the constitutional structure that has served us very well for generations, giving us a remarkable amount of peace. We have never seen refugees moving around our country, or the disturbances and turmoil that we see to this day in Europe.
The harmony that we have enjoyed is being disrupted in the most irresponsible way by the Labour Government, purely for political advantage. They see the process as a way of establishing their power in the Chamber into the foreseeable future. They also want to bring us closer to the European structure. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), whom I congratulate heartily on securing the debate, has pointed out, the hidden agenda for England involves the Committee of the Regions, which is part and parcel of the Maastricht treaty.
It is no accident that England has been left out of the referendums, which I am sure that the Liberal Democrats greatly support. I am astonished that the hon. Member for


North Devon (Mr. Harvey) could want yet another layer of government. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats think that people have bottomless pockets to pay for such structures. The Scottish Parliament is already predicted to cost £50 million a year, but we all know that that will be a massive underestimate. We have already said that some people will be drawing twin salaries for popping up and down on first-class flights between here and Edinburgh to poke their nose into English affairs whenever it suits the Labour party to sway a vote one way or another. They will be able to vote on matters of domestic importance to England.

Sir Robert Smith: There is no first-class fare between Scotland and England on British Airways.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Private enterprise has clearly cottoned on to the fact that the Scots are canny with their money and do not want to waste it.

Mr. Forth: It is our money.

Mrs. Gorman: With our money, then; I bet that they travel first class if they come down by train.
The issue is well illustrated by one of the Labour party's thinkers, as I believe that he is known—the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who has recently fallen from grace in his party, but who occupied a prominent position in its thinking and strategy. He announced at a meeting of the European Movement in March 1998:
The era of pure representative democracy is slowly coming to an end. Democracy and legitimacy need constant renewal.
I am sure that we all agree with that fairly bland statement. He then said:
They need to be redefined with each generation. Representative government is being complemented by more direct forms of involvement from the Internet to Referenda.
Remarkably, he missed out England, where 48 million of our population reside, when offering referendums.
Two years ago, I promoted a Bill calling for a referendum on whether the people of England wanted a Parliament for England. I used that term advisedly. It has nothing to do with nationalism; it has to do with fairness. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has frequently pointed out, there is no justification for leaving the people of England out of decisions on their future, when that courtesy has been paid to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Our country is to be sold off in a gigantic boot sale, a bit at a time, to Europe so that it can dispose of us and our long-established traditions. The institutions that we take for granted, including this place and the other House, which is currently being blitzed by Labour, are tremendously important for the stability of our nation. They have proved their worth over generations and we disturb them at our peril. One of the basic tenets of membership of this House is that we are all equal and our rights to speak in debates and our ability to influence legislation are equal, but Labour's policies for Scotland and Wales have disturbed that.
Labour is not the only party involved. Historically, it was a Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, who gave the Scottish people a Scottish Office to deal with

domestic issues. There was no great need for a new Parliament in Scotland because many of the decisions have always been made within the Scottish Office and that tradition has continued, particularly in education and law, and we have all learned lessons from that. There has been no particular political animosity in the Conservative party towards Scotland, but I know that that issue has been played up by the Scottish nationalists.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is indicative of the sheer indifference to the wishes and interests of the people of England that there is not a single Labour Back Bencher sitting behind the Minister?

Mrs. Gorman: That is a telling point. However, in the Tea Room, quietly and out of earshot of the those on the Government Front Bench, I have heard murmurings among Labour Beck Benchers—when they can be bothered to turn up—about their considerable misgivings over what the Government are doing to our country. Now that they are beginning to find a little courage, I hope that they will put in their fourpenny worth on this issue.
As I was saying, the Conservative party has never done anything to bring about disturbances such as we are seeing now. Indeed, more recently than Lord Salisbury, Winston Churchill created the post of a Minister for Wales and gave Wales a seat at the Cabinet table within the United Kingdom Government—and that is what matters.
Naturally, the Labour Government would prefer to keep the Union alive—the Prime Minister has said that on a number of occasions. Of course that is what they want because it provides Celtic voting fodder at Westminster. The Scots and Welsh will be able to represent views here, particularly on budgetary issues which, as has already been pointed out, will be grossly imbalanced to the disadvantage of the English taxpayer.
There is no question of the English people tolerating such a situation indefinitely. If the Government believe in referendums, as the right hon. Member for Hartlepool has stated, is it not time that they decided that those of us who live in England, including those of Scottish and Welsh origin and others from all over the globe, should have a say? We have taxation without representation in parts of the United Kingdom that will be disposing of the money, whereas the people in Scotland and Wales will have representation within their Parliament and Assembly without the need to raise the funds to back it up. We have already seen the problems that that is likely to cause.
The hon. Member for North Devon talked about more regional devolution of power. I wonder whether he has any idea what the powers will be or their limit. We have already pointed out the ludicrous nature of a separate transport policy in different regions—but it is possible. We saw such an anomaly immediately after the election of the Scottish Parliament, when the Labour party needed to get into bed with the Liberal Democrats. There was a hoo-hah about whether they would overturn their own Government's policy on higher education funding. Such anomalies will develop all over the country and we will have fratricide. People will contend with each other for funds. There will be animosity, and the harmony, which, as I have said, is vital to the success of our country, will be damaged.

Mr. Maclean: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not exaggerating the different policies that may be in


operation. The lesson we have learned from the Lib-Lab pact in Scotland is that the Liberals were so desperate to get jobs and to become Deputy First Ministers that they backed down on their election promises and got into bed at the Government's price. There was no real dissension.

Mrs. Gorman: That is what happens when the Government are broken into bits and pieces and start doing deals. The same applies to proportional representation as a form of election.

Sir Robert Smith: In the spirit of the hon. Lady's belief that proportional representation is bad, she could solve the problem of the need for deals in the Scottish Parliament by urging every Scottish Conservative elected by PR—there would be no Conservatives without it—not to attend the Parliament or to vote. That would solve the problem.

Mrs. Gorman: The ludicrous nature of the hon. Gentleman's remarks will preclude me from allowing him any more interventions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has pointed out, England is being wiped off the map. It is no accident but is part of the Labour Government's policy, which they are not prepared to declare openly to the British people. The Conservative party is making that clear and will continue to do so. We see the passions of patriotism beginning to stir in the breasts of those who live in England. I hope that the people of England who, as we know, have yet to be made fully aware of the implications for their back pockets as well as their hearts and minds, will, in the not-too-distant future, decide that the party which embraces their cause—the Conservative party, which has always believed in the Union of this country—will stand up for their right to be treated equally with the rest of the United Kingdom. They will then put the Labour party back where it belongs—on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on obtaining this debate and on the lucid and logical presentation of his argument. It was a delight to listen to. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) who can take credit for having broached this subject initially. She put it on the political agenda. Many people are grateful to her for doing so and for all she does to keep it in the public eye.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has recited many of the problems that exist today. He mentioned the West Lothian question and the problems created by the Barnett formula. He explained that both those problems have been exacerbated by Welsh and Scottish devolution which, in turn, is leading to the burgeoning demand for an English Parliament.
I should like to broaden the debate by drawing the House's attention to other problems. There is potential for the break-up of the United Kingdom. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) in an intervention when he rightly identified that as being part of a recognisable policy from

the European Union so that ultimately we have a Europe controlled, governed and ruled through the regions rather than through national Parliaments.
We are seeing the deliberate destruction of the United Kingdom constitution, ruthlessly pushed forward by the new Labour Government. It is consistent with the views of those in the Councils of the European Commission who want to see the power of national Parliaments reduced.
The other problems essentially concern the upper House. The new Labour Government know that their first move is to abolish the power of the hereditaries. We all know that that is their policy and, to give credit where it is due, they made no secret of it because it was in their election manifesto. However, many of us depart from the Labour Government because we recognise that they do not have a living clue what the next move will be. So, in addition to the problems caused by the West Lothian question, the Barnett formula and the burgeoning demand for an English Parliament we have the problems in the upper House. The argument rages back and forth as to whether we should have an upper House elected by universal suffrage or one that is appointed. If it is to be appointed, it is obvious that we would be increasing the patronage power of the Executive. There are some who argue that we should have a mix of the two.

Mr. Maclean: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's excellent, powerful and fascinating speech. However, I take issue with him on one point. I think that the Government and the Prime Minister know exactly what they want to do in the other place. They have made their first move to abolish hereditary peers and they do not intend to have another replacement chamber elected democratically or by any other means. Quite clearly they intend the Prime Minister to appoint his own placemen and to continue that for the next 20, 30 or 50 years.

Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point and I do not resile from it. That is very likely the Government's intention. If it is, what I am about to suggest is even more pertinent than I originally anticipated. If the intention is to make the upper House an extension of the power of the patronage of the Prime Minister and the Executive, surely the House of Commons would wish to question that.
We should use the opportunity created by Lords reform to try to deal with as many as possible of the existing problems. I have instanced several of them. We must now be prepared to consider the creation of a United Kingdom federal Parliament sitting on the red Benches in the upper House and an English Parliament sitting on the green Benches here. That would eliminate at a stroke four real and readily identifiable problems.
The duties and responsibilities of the federal Parliament would be essentially those appertaining to defence, foreign affairs, law and order and Treasury, with all other functions devolved to the English and Scottish Parliaments and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. Admittedly, my proposal envisages a unicameral system, but it has to be recognised that the precedent for a unicameral system has already been well and truly established by Scottish and Welsh devolution.
What is more important is that the proposal eliminates any possibility of turf wars between the two elected Chambers. In addition, because the federal Parliament


would be elected by universal suffrage, it removes the prospect of an upper Chamber filled partially or entirely with placemen. The question of competing claims for democratic legitimacy as between two House of Parliament simply would not arise in those circumstances.
A federal Parliament comprising Members returned by unitary authorities and counties would bind the United Kingdom together at a time when its historical cohesiveness is under threat as never before. It would solve the West Lothian question, end the inequity of the Barnett formula, satisfy the English dimension and represent an intelligible and practical solution to an otherwise intractable problem.
As an addendum, it goes without saying that elections to the United Kingdom federal Parliament must be by the first-past-the-post system so as to ensure that as far as is humanly possible, ultimate power rests with the people and is not handed to the political parties.

Mr. David Maclean: I regret that the time has come to take seriously the question of an English Parliament. I say that not because I am a devoted fan of the concept of an English Parliament or English nationalism, but because I passionately believe in the United Kingdom and keeping what we can of our United Kingdom Parliament. However, the United Kingdom is heading for destruction and so is the United Kingdom Parliament because of the unbalancing carried out by the Government in the past two years.
Scotland will have its own Parliament and Wales its own Assembly. I suspect that in order to do any deal at any price in Northern Ireland, the Government will settle for anything there, so we can assume that at some time, sooner rather than later, there will be independent Government in Northern Ireland. This Parliament will be left quite unbalanced in its rights, duties and responsibilities.
The United Kingdom Parliament has worked because in this Chamber we were all equals. Admittedly, the Prime Minister, primus inter pares, is slightly more equal than others as are the rest of the Government, with their unique duties. Nevertheless, attempts were made to make sure that we represented roughly the same number of constituents with a unique formula built in for Scotland giving Scottish Members fewer constituents and therefore slightly greater powers. However, that was part of our settlement and it was acceptable as long as we had a United Kingdom Parliament in which all Members had equal voting rights. When we walk through this Lobby or that, we do so as individuals and a vote on one side is worth exactly the same as a vote on the other side.
From 1 July, however, that will no longer be the case as there will be 12 double troughers: six Scottish Nationalists, two Liberal Democrats and five Labour. A number of Members of the Scottish Parliament, who yesterday were voting themselves bigger salaries or allowances, will also sit in this House as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. The nonsense will be that 72 Members representing Scottish constituencies will continue to sit in this House with the right to vote on everything in my constituency and the constituencies of all my right hon. and hon. Friends from England, but they will have no right to vote on those issues in Scotland and nor will we. That will unbalance the House. Therefore I

say to the Government, not with any sense of glee because it fills me with great distress, that they will cause the destruction of the United Kingdom.
This Parliament has worked rather like a centrifuge. If each side is loaded equally, it can spin at any speed and turn a great number of revolutions without destruction, but if one side of the centrifuge is overloaded, it will become unbalanced and inevitably destroy the whole machine. While we are still a United Kingdom, I can say to my constituents in Cumberland, just south of the Scottish border where there is an appalling stretch of M6 dual carriageway—the so-called Cumberland gap—that the Government are spending 24 per cent. more on roads in Scotland than they are on roads in England, but as part of United Kingdom policy, wealthier areas subsidise poorer ones.
Last weekend, some of my constituents pointed out to me that now that the Scots have their own Parliament, why should we tolerate Scottish MPs and MPs being able to vote on budgetary decisions in England which allocate their own constituencies 25 per cent. more money than English constituencies. The Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) is one of the grossest and vilest examples of that. We have a Labour Minister from Glasgow dictating roads policy in England when she and other Ministers from Scotland have the benefit of higher financial rewards for their own constituencies. I shall not labour the point any more, but my constituents have spotted it and they do not like it.
Something must done about those injustices. They are not just perceived injustices, given that the Government have now created two classes of Member of Parliament in this House—those who get the money and those who have to vote it through but have no rights to it. Creating two classes of Member of Parliament here will destroy this House in its present form.
We must go down the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), which would be an acceptable solution. The Government have decided to give Scotland its independence, and Wales its semi-independence. Let us make no bones about it—Scotland will be independent sooner rather than later. One cannot be 95 per cent. pregnant—one cannot be 95 per cent. independent. Having given the Scots almost complete independence, the Government have discovered that the Scots have said, "Thank you, but we want a little more." The Government have not understood that reaction.
Sooner rather than later, Scotland will be independent, yet Scottish Members of Parliament will have unique voting rights in this House on domestic English matters. The only way in which we can keep something of our United Kingdom is by moving to a federal system. I despised such a system until last year, when I saw it as possibly the only solution. If Scotland has its own Parliament deciding on health, roads, education and other devolved matters—and Wales has the same—it makes sense to consider a similar solution for England, so that those matters are decided by English Members of Parliament and by English taxpayers, making the most of the budget that they have been allocated, or any extra money that they wish to raise by their own taxation powers.
However, for the sake of the defence and security of this country—and our voting clout in Europe—let us not destroy the United Kingdom. For defence, security and


foreign affairs—and for our votes in the Council of Ministers in Europe—let us keep the United Kingdom for those large, federal issues. It grieves me to come to this conclusion, because I believe that our previous system worked well. However, that is gone and there is no point in crying over spilled milk.
Scotland will be independent and Wales is going its own way. Presumably, Northern Ireland will be hived off by the Government to Prime Minister Adams in due course. If we are to keep something of the United Kingdom, the federal system suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow must be something at which we look seriously. We could use either this Chamber or the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend suggests.
I am sad that we have had to debate this matter, because I thought in the past that the concept of an English Parliament was unnecessary—and it was. However, an English Parliament is now the only possible solution to the West Lothian question, and in terms of keeping what remains of the United Kingdom intact. It will be the only way to stop the nasty side of English nationalism, which will rise if the perceived injustices continue.

Mr. David Davis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on obtaining this debate, which relates to matters of enormous constitutional importance. However, the field of argument is populated by more than its fair share of canards, Aunt Sallies, delusions and mirages, some of which I shall endeavour to knock down.
The Minister has argued that the case for an English Parliament originates solely from some unpleasant form of English nationalism. That is not remotely true—certainly not in my case. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—who has played a sterling part in bringing this issue forward—said that I have always argued that this is not an issue of nationalism, but of fairness and duty. It is an issue of fairness to English constituents, who have had their democracy diluted—a democratic deficit has been created for them—and it is an issue of duty on our part. Just as we can no more give away the sovereignty of our country on behalf of our constituents as their representatives, neither can we allow their democracy to be diluted and undermined. That is taking away from them something which they own and we do not.
This is an issue primarily of primary legislation. I had some sympathy with some of the points made by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), but he did not spend long dealing with that issue. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I favour an English Parliament not from a sense of romance and emotion—although there is plenty of romance and emotion about feeling English—but through a clinical application of logic. Like my right hon. Friend, I would not have started from here, if I had been given the choice. I think that the United Kingdom's original arrangements were viable, and they were admired by many other democracies. However, we do not have that choice any more.
Now, it is possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to be unrepresentative of an English nation, but to legislate for that English nation against the political will

of that English nation. I arrived at my conclusion by eliminating all the other options—a sort of Conan Doyle approach. All the other proposals would lead, unfortunately and inevitably, to a constitutional crisis of one sort or another.
We have heard talk of English-designated days, English-designated legislation or an English Grand Committee. Let us imagine how that would work where the UK Parliament was of a different political persuasion from the English Members of that Parliament. People talk of Labour and Tories in this context. Frankly, we are designing a constitution for centuries, not years or days. Therefore, we must allow for the fact that there might be two completely different parties dealing with this system.
In circumstances where there were different political persuasions in the UK Parliament, the UK Government would have come to power on the basis of a manifesto which would have included policies relating to transport and health—issues that are massively important to the voters who put them there. They come top of the salience league when people are elected—they are what our electors care about most.

Mr. Harvey: If a system had emerged where the English Parliament was responsible for those matters while the UK Parliament had a completely different set of responsibilities, why would the Government come to power on that platform? Surely their platform would be different.

Mr. Davis: That is precisely my point. My argument concerns what would happen if there were not an English Parliament, but an English Grand Committee, or English-designated legislation or English-designated days. In those circumstances, the UK Government could propose a health Bill which, because it would be an English health Bill, would be defeated. The Executive would be defeated time and time again on principle planks of their manifesto. How long would this Government put up with that situation? Straight away we would have a major constitutional crisis.
It is for that reason that I come to the inevitable conclusion—with no great pleasure—that we need an English Parliament. It could sit in this place, and I am happy with the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), which is a perfectly sensible option. There are many other options as to where it sits, how it is chosen and whether it includes people who are already Members of the UK Parliament.
We must have an English Executive. If we have anything other than that, we cannot solve the problem. That is why I arrive at my position—not by emotion or sentiment, but by the elimination of the other possibilities. If we choose the other possibilities, we will have a constitutional crisis, and then we really will have a problem with English nationalism. At that point, the English will feel badly treated.
I have one minute to deal with some of the canards, so I shall be brief. It is argued that such conflict does not happen very often, but we are legislating for centuries. If it happens once, it is a problem, and in centuries it will happen much more often.
Some argue that an English Parliament would accelerate the break-up of the Union. My argument is based on my experience in Canada, which has a similar


federal system. There are much greater tensions between Quebec and Ontario than there ever are between Scotland and England, yet the federal system has withstood the pressures.
Some argue that we would play into Europe's hands by taking the federal route. In fact—I speak as an ex-Minister for Europe—the countries that are best at defending themselves against European predations are those that are themselves federal states. Germany is one example. I do not want to pick Belgium as an example, but we should note that it has to ratify European legislation through seven parliaments, so it has a ratchet.
Most of the canards can be seen to be false if one examines them carefully. The only solution that we can ultimately adopt is an English Parliament for the English people, giving democracy to all the British people.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: This has been an astonishing debate, first because the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) are perhaps among the most serious that face the nation today and secondly because—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom one would have expected, above all other hon. Members, to be present, and who has been present in so far as his diary has permitted—we have Witnessed the entire absence of interest on the part of the very large number of Labour Members.
My right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that that is remarkable. It arises not from any lack of interest in Adjournment debates as such but from the fact that Labour Members, and the Government, do not regard these issues as serious. They do not think that there is a problem. We owe my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire a great debt for bringing a very real problem to our attention.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: There is a packed meeting of the parliamentary Labour party upstairs, with the Home Secretary addressing us on the question of asylum. One ought to view these matters in proportion.

Mr. Letwin: That may well be part of the explanation. I shall be most interested to see whether Labour Members show any real interest in the subject by raising it themselves on other occasions.
The Government have for most of the past two years taken the position that there is not a problem. I shall be very surprised if the Minister tells us anything other than that the Government do not think that anything needs to be done, with the possible exception of the creation of regional government in England. Some of my hon. Friends animadverted to that subject, but only the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) went into it in any detail.
The idea of regional government in England is far worse even than my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire suggested. We could add another layer of government and generate the huge paradox of accountability of no one having the slightest idea at which level various decisions are made. We are perilously close to that even now. The paradox is that the larger the number of forms of government we have, the less we can hold any of them to account, because the less idea we have about their actions.
The hon. Member for North Devon had a solution: to abolish county councils—and district councils, for all I know—and regionalise. That would move us in the opposite direction: far from bringing government down towards people, it would take it up away from them. Worse than that, the Government do not plan to introduce regional government in any rational form. They are suggesting regional referendums—no doubt without any rules to make them fair—and if, for example, the north-east, and no other area, voted in favour, we would have the bizarre arrangement of not only Scotland and Wales but other areas creating further imbalance in the constitution. I cannot imagine any less satisfactory form of dynamic constitution making.
Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, absolutely rightly, said that the move towards regionalisation was part of a deeper plot. I do not know whether the Minister is part of that plot or whether the Government are aware that they are part of it. Much that happens in relation to our gradual absorption into a federal united states of Europe is not designed by anyone in this country; we merely fall into it by a series of lapses of attention. The European Commission has demonstrated its clear intention, in a series of remarkably well argued and powerful cases, proposed in various studies and in the maps to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred, that we should end with a Europe of the regions, without England, and indeed without the United Kingdom as an entity.
For all those reasons, the Conservative party is, and will remain, wholly opposed to the regionalisation of England as a solution to the West Lothian question. Moreover, such a move would require giving primary legislative powers to the regions, and that is not in the Government's, let alone anyone else's, wildest ambitions, so it does not even constitute the beginning of a solution.
How do we tackle the West Lothian problem? Conservative Members have lucidly and powerfully illustrated why it needs to be tackled: the imbalances and the sense of unfairness to which the current situation will increasingly give rise. There must be a solution. We must come up with a set of policies to begin to diminish what will otherwise be a growing feeling of unfairness.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have, to a man—and a woman—argued with eloquence in favour of various forms of the solution broadly known as an English Parliament, which is in a sense a misnomer, because it really means an English Executive or Government, together with an assembly or parliament with primary legislative powers. I understand the reasons behind that view, as well as the objections advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) to other solutions, but I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends may have understated the difficulties attending the proposition that there should be an English parliament and an English Government.
There is no problem in principle about having a parliament within a federal state, as many countries operate such a system and we are now in the process of operating it vis-à-vis Scotland, but there is a problem if there is an imbalance between one part of the kingdom and another, and the fact is that, regardless of whether the situation is desirable, England is overwhelmingly larger, richer and more powerful than Scotland, and its Parliament and Government would be overwhelmingly larger and richer—and, I suspect, more powerful—than


any federal government. It would certainly be responsible for the great bulk of the taxation and spending in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gray: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Letwin: I am saying not that there is anything wrong with that in itself, but that it would cause difficulties for a federal Government, supposedly responsible for macro-economic policy, if they could not control the great bulk of fiscal policy and expenditure. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to attend to that issue, which needs serious consideration before we leap in the direction of an English Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden asked whether a federal UK Government, if one were brought about by the creation of an English Government, would be able to maintain sufficient national confidence in the face of a powerful English Government to hold its own in the European Union. All my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that any federal government should have such an ambition.
Because of such problems we need to pause before launching ourselves into the idea of an English Parliament. We must ask whether there is any other less dramatic solution that might address the West Lothian question, while not suffering from those drawbacks.
The range of options that my right hon. and hon. Friends have described, including giving a veto over English legislation to Members of this House who represent English constituencies, are serious possibilities. I do not think that they would necessarily create constitutional crises, but I see that they would create constitutional tensions.
I fear that what the Government have created, and the problems to which it has given rise, make it impossible to conceive of a solution that is wholly perfect for this country, configured as we are. I do not think that regional government gives us the beginning of an answer. I see that an English Parliament and an English Government would give us one answer, but an answer that involves real difficulties. I do not argue that a veto for English Members over English legislation, or any of the other variants, gives us a perfect solution, but those ideas may have fewer deficiencies than that of an English Parliament.
In any event, this is the terrain on which we need to hold the debate. We need to admit that there is a problem and to agree that it needs a solution, and that we need to discuss urgently as a nation—with the co-operation of the Government, I hope, rather than in the absence of any real interest from them—whether we shall choose an English Parliament, or perhaps some more modest proposal, so as to discover whether that would be a sufficient response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): One of the pleasures and privileges of the life of a junior Minister is to be frequently present in the Chamber on Wednesday mornings and at other times when Adjournment debates are taking place. I will have

had the pleasure of listening to and responding to two debates this morning, and I must tell the House that there was a marked contrast between the two.
The first was a serious and intelligent debate with high quality contributions from both sides of the House, characterised by an almost total absence of party political jibes, nasty personal attacks, overblown rhetoric and paranoid hyperbole. However, I have to say that—with at least three honourable exceptions, including the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who wound up for the Opposition—the tone of this debate has been rather different. At its lowest, it sank to inexcusable and nasty personal attacks on the Minister for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). To one of the Opposition Members who made those attacks, I must point out that my right hon. Friend represents Airdrie and Shotts, not Glasgow. It is somewhat odd that a Member who referred to the nasty side of English nationalism should reveal such ignorance about Scotland.
The Government are determined to decentralise power, to open up government, to reform Parliament and to increase individual rights. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London authority and the proposals set out in our local government White Paper are all important examples of how government is being tailored to suit the circumstances of the different areas within the United Kingdom.
The debate about some form of self-government for parts of the United Kingdom seems always to have been with us. The response over the years—from the time of Lord Salisbury, who was mentioned in the debate—has been to provide for increasing administrative devolution, with powers and functions being exercised by the Secretary of State. But that was not matched with arrangements to ensure accountability to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—or, indeed, to the people of parts of England. The need for action to address that "democratic deficit" became more and more pressing. Only by taking action to relieve those concerns could we provide a sound framework to maintain and secure the long-term future of the United Kingdom.
Some would argue that devolution means the end of the UK as we know it. That tends to be the cry of those who are resistant to change, and have resisted it over the years. We want there to be change, where appropriate, to address real concerns, because we know that resistance, especially unthinking resistance, to change has given added force to the voices of those who argue that there is no possibility of responding to the legitimate concerns for more devolved government in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Any student of the history of these islands who thinks about the debates in this House more than a century ago, when the idea of some degree of devolution in Ireland was first considered, will recognise the force of the argument that unthinking resistance to change does not guarantee the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Government are determined to support the continued integrity of the United Kingdom by responding to the legitimate concerns of the different elements within the UK who wish to see more devolved power.

Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)


that referendums are an important part of his party's new democratic outlook? If so, will he explain why the people who live in England are not allowed to have a referendum to express those views—if, indeed, they hold them?

Mr. Raynsford: I have two answers for the hon. Lady. First, I agree with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Secondly, I must remind her that she is wrong, because one of the referendums involved the people of London, who had an explicit opportunity to say whether they wanted a degree of devolved power within London—power that is currently exercised by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but which will in future be exercised by a democratically elected London mayor. I shall deal with that element in a moment.
The first step in our regional agenda for England was to establish regional development agencies to improve competitiveness and to provide for effective co-ordination of economic development. The RDAs were established last December and became operational on 1 April.
We expect RDAs to become powerhouses for regional economic development. Currently only two English regions exceed the European average in terms of GDP. That cannot be right, and we must take action to tackle that deficit. RDAs are now lead bodies at regional level for co-ordinating inward investment initiatives, raising skills, improving the competitiveness of business, and social and physical regeneration.
Our aim is for RDAs to provide a framework for economic decision making in the regions, and to give a better strategic focus. They need to support and enhance national policies, while addressing the needs of the regions. We are also encouraging the formation of regional chambers to build up the voice of the regions within the current framework.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) chided us for the delay in proceedings, but last month we designated the first ever regional chambers—in the north-west, the east midlands and the west midlands. Chambers in other regions are currently under consideration. We are proceeding, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on the basis of consent and the views of the different regions, which, as he acknowledged in his speech, is an appropriate approach. We shall continue in that vein.
The chambers are voluntary groupings of local councillors and representatives of the various sectors with a stake in a region's economic, social and environmental well-being.

Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: Very briefly, because I am trying to respond to a debate, and I have been given only 10 minutes in which to do so.

Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister aware that in the north-west, which he has mentioned, the regional chamber is already planning to call itself the north-west regional assembly, and that 70 per cent. of its members are councillors, with not much representation from productive industry?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly extremely unhappy about the idea of a chamber or regional assembly in his region, but we believe that it is right that the voices of those who have proper responsibilities in the region should be taken into account. That includes councillors, as well as representatives of other sectors. As I have already said, the chambers are representative of a wider group of people than councillors. As the RDAs are business led, it is appropriate that there should be a counterbalance in the form of the chambers, which involve democratic representation.
We have given the chambers a specific role in relation to RDAs—to help make them responsive to regional views and to give an account of themselves to those with an interest in their work. We also remain committed to move in due course to directly elected regional government where there is a demand for it. How quickly we move in that direction will depend in large part on the success of the RDAs and regional chambers—

Mr. Gray: What about England?

Mr. Raynsford: I am trying to talk about England. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, who took a great deal of time to talk in absurdly inflated and extravagant language, had allowed me rather more time—[Interruption.]—and were not barracking me now, they might learn something on the subject, instead of pandering to their own prejudices.

Human Rights (Pakistan)

Mr. Tony Colman: I begin by expressing my gratitude for this opportunity for a debate on human rights in Pakistan and the related persecution of the millions of Ahmadi people in that country. The worldwide headquarters of the Ahmadi people is in Putney, to where the supreme head of the people has had to move following threats to his life in Pakistan.
The Ahmadis are one of the 72 sects of Islam, although it should be remembered that there are even more sects in Christianity. Within Islam, the Sunni and Shi'ite sects are far larger, but there are about 20 million Ahmadis and the sect is growing quickly. The House of Commons Library estimates that there are about 5 million Ahmadis in Pakistan.
Discrimination against all minority religions in Pakistan is severe. Other hon. Members may wish to mention the plight of Christians, but the laws afflicting the Ahmadis are the most severe, involving life imprisonment and the death penalty for the simple profession of the Ahmadi faith.
The constitution of Pakistan, founded under Muhammed Ali Jinnah in 1948, is based on religious tolerance. Only in 1974 did the Government of Mr. Bhutto amend the constitution to deem Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. In 1984, General Zia ul-Haq passed ordnance 20, which made it a criminal offence, subject to imprisonment, to describe Ahmadis as Muslims. Even after the lifting of martial law in 1985, the constitutional position remained unchanged, and in 1986, the death penalty was introduced for forms of blasphemy—a measure aimed at the Ahmadis in particular.
In 1992, the death penalty was made mandatory. Amnesty International commented at the time that it was concerned that
under the amended form of Section 295-C of Pakistan's Penal Code, members of the minority Ahmadiyya Community may face the death penalty as a mandatory punishment for the exercise of their religious beliefs.
Of course, they now do. The democratic Governments of Pakistan since then have continued the use of ordnance 20 and the blasphemy laws to persecute the Ahmadis in Pakistan.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion has long been recognised as the basic human right by all religions and all civilised societies. That right is enshrined in the founding charter of the United Nations, and in the United Nations charter on human rights—both of which have been signed by the Government of Pakistan.
When the then President of Pakistan, General Zia ul-Haq, was told by members of the UN Commission on Human Rights that ordnance 20 contravened the UN charter, he replied that Ahmadis personally offended him, that he was aware that ordnance 20 violated human rights but that he did not care. When she was Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto said that Ahmadis
were declared non-Muslim in my father's rule. How can I undo the great service my father did for Islam? My Government will not give any concessions to Ahmadis.
The present Government of Mian Nawaz Sharif follow the same restrictive practice of persecuting members of the Ahmadian movement on any and all charges, which

include charges of un-Islamic activities, blasphemy, and even of calling themselves Muslim. During the latest census, many new Ahmadis were prosecuted for declaring themselves to be Ahmadis and Muslims. That shows not only a blatant breach of confidentiality by the Government in releasing such information, but it institutionalises persecution of the Ahmadis at the highest level. However, Pakistan is a peculiar state, which has chosen to legislate and enact laws, such as the recent anti-terrorism provisions, to target Ahmadis and to make the laws more barbarous and unbearable.
I shall give a couple of instances of that. An Ahmadi Muslim was accused by non-Ahmadis that he had preached and propagated his faith to the villagers, and was brought before the specially constituted anti-terrorist court. In spite of strenuous denials, the case was considered proven under Pakistan's penal code ordnance 295-C. He was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment and was fined 100,000 rupees. Only in Pakistan is preaching considered to be a terrorist offence.
Then there is the case of Mirza Ghulam Qader, a high official and a nephew of the supreme head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. He was murdered in broad daylight in front of many people. The assassins took refuge in a school and took the children hostage, before being killed in a shoot-out with the police. Large amounts of heavy weaponry, including rocket launchers, sub-machine guns and hand grenades, were recovered from the assassins' vehicle, which I believe pointed to a deeper conspiracy. Within two days, all the recovered weapons disappeared from police custody, leaving no proof or evidence of the offence.
That was only one of the high-profile murders of Ahmadiyya members in Pakistan. In fact, in the past year many members of the community have been murdered in broad daylight in front of witnesses, but no one has been apprehended or prosecuted for the crimes. The murders were all religiously motivated, and the victims included doctors, engineers, lawyers, business men and eminent citizens of their areas.
The Islamic National Front issued a very large prize for the murder of, among others, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the supreme head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim community. That news was covered in many well known mass-circulation newspapers in Pakistan on 1 October 1988. The INF declaration said that
any Muslim warrior who despatches this enemy of Islam to hell will be offered cash prizes of 1 million rupees.
The Government of Pakistan took no action against that incitement to international terrorism.
I should further point out that Pakistan alone among the Islamic states has taken this draconian stance towards the Ahmadis. So what should be done? I was pleased by the answer to a written question in the other place on 13 April this year, which stated that the Government have
called upon the Government of Pakistan to prevent the misuse of that country's blasphemy laws and to introduce legislation which would abolish the death penalty for blasphemy."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 1999; Vol. 599, c. 118]
However, we need to do more to protect the rights of all minorities to freedoms of religion.
Therefore, the following questions suggest themselves. Pakistan is a full member of the United Nations and a signatory to the UN human rights charter. At the next review, would it be possible for the British Government to


take up the case of religious freedom in Pakistan? The US President has already spoken in support of the repeal of ordnance 20.
The UN Commission on Religious Intolerance is taking evidence. Can the Government support the petition of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan, and work to remove the fatwah placed on the supreme head of the Ahmadiyya community, as they have done successfully in other cases?
Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth, whose human rights initiative, chaired by Dr. Kamal Hussein of Bangladesh, recently published its report on the right to cultural tolerance in all Commonwealth countries. Will the Government ensure that this report is fully debated at the Commonwealth conference in Durban, South Africa, this autumn? Will they also ensure that the situation in Pakistan is brought to the attention of all those present, perhaps in terms of a review of the 1991 Harare declaration, which Pakistan signed? That declaration spoke of
fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, regardless of race, colour
or creed.
I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to me in writing in connection with those questions, but an additional question involves all Members of the House. Would it be possible for colleagues, at meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to raise our abhorrence of ordnance 20 and the blasphemy laws? An appropriate opportunity to raise those matters would be that organisation's annual conference this September.
The Ahmadis expect that clerics of other sects or faiths may object to their religion. Their criticism—and mine—is not of that. What is different in this case is that the Pakistani Government have institutionalised and supported such objections with the death penalty or life imprisonment.
The Putney debates of 1647 in St. Mary's church, Putney, speak down the centuries. The belief, which I share, is that it is not the state's responsibility to determine the religion of its subjects. Religion is personal and private. To any Government, all subjects should be equal when it comes to their personal and religious inclinations.
I shall finish by connecting this matter and the Jewish faith. This week is Anne Frank week. On 11 June, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, His Excellency Chief Emeka Anyaoku, will sign the Anne Frank declaration for the new millennium on behalf of the Commonwealth nations. It includes a pledge that people should work together for a better world, free of bigotry in the next millennium. Anne Frank was 15 when she died for her faith.
A 14-year-old boy, Nazir Ahmed, is in central prison, Hydrabad, Sind, awaiting sentence under the blasphemy laws as an Ahmadi. The sentence could be life imprisonment or death. Many Pakistanis must be repulsed and disgusted by that. May I recommend to the Government of Pakistan that they think about the fate of Anne Frank, the declaration and that 14-year-old boy, and repeal ordnance 20 and the blasphemy laws forthwith? By doing so they can demonstrate that Pakistan is a full member of the Commonwealth nations for the new millennium.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this important debate. The headquarters of the Ahmadi community lie in his constituency, but I have the privilege of having the Ahmadi education and conference centre, called Islamabad, at Tilford. In the summer, up to 10,000 members of the Ahmadi community from around the world gather there. Tilford is a beautiful Surrey village, and it is a tribute to the community that the Ahmadis are valued, respected and well integrated. Around 25 families live there permanently.
During my time as a Member I have heard appalling tales of unhappiness and discrimination. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is appalling, given that Pakistan is a signatory to the United Nations declaration on human rights, that we cannot take further steps to protect a well-educated, civilised and public-spirited community. In Pakistan, the press is gagged; the judiciary appears to play to the gallery and there are arrests, trumped-up charges and assaults; employment opportunities are constrained; and there is no freedom of speech or religion.
In February, I put a question to the Minister's predecessor, Derek Fatchett. At the same time as the hon. Member for Putney, I received a reply in which Mr. Fatchett said that he had raised the matter during a recent visit to Pakistan. He had been assured by a Minister that the Pakistani Government were determined to ensure that all religious minorities received the rights granted to them by the constitution. That Minister was examining ways of ensuring that religious minorities could play their full part as equal citizens of Pakistan.
Mr. Fatchett said that the Government would monitor closely the situation of the religious minorities in Pakistan and would raise further concerns with the Pakistani Government. In the present climate, we would all agree that that is not enough. The hon. Member for Putney made specific and practical suggestions on how we could put greater weight behind the campaign to ensure that the Ahmadi community's human rights are recognised not only in the United Kingdom, but in Pakistan.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on his success in securing a debate that gives the House a timely chance to discuss an important issue that is rightly causing concern here and elsewhere.
From the outset, the Government have ensured that the promotion and observance of human rights has been at the very heart of our foreign policy. Intolerance, wherever it occurs and in whatever guise, is unacceptable. It is particularly disturbing that we are debating intolerance in Pakistan, a country with which Britain has so many links—history, culture, trade, development, sport and, of course, for many, family ties. Ours is a warm relationship of mutual respect, which allows us to speak freely to each other about our respective concerns.
My hon. Friend has specifically raised concerns about Pakistan's Ahmadiyya community. We share his concerns about the position of the Ahmadis, as we do about the position of other religious minorities in Pakistan, including Christians and Hindus. Those responsible for the establishment of Pakistan were wholly committed to


religious tolerance. On the day of partition, the founding father of Pakistan, Muhammed Ali Jinnah, inspired and reassured the new citizens of a new nation with the words:
You may belong to any religion, cast or creed … There is no discrimination, no distinction between one community or another.
Those values are reflected in Pakistan's constitution. Article 20 says:
Subject to law, public order and morality, (a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and (b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.
Unfortunately, while the constitutional framework is clear, particular legal acts continue to give cause for concern, especially the controversial blasphemy laws. Article 295(c) of Pakistan's penal code prescribes the death penalty for those who by words, spoken or written, directly or indirectly, are taken to defile the name of the prophet Muhammed. The law has frequently been misused by groups and individuals to target members of religious minorities. Accusations of blasphemy can lead and have led to death sentences being handed down, although none has yet been carried out.
We have repeatedly asked the Pakistani Government to amend or abolish the blasphemy laws, of which Ahmadis are frequent victims. During our European Union presidency last year, we made representations in May. In October, we joined a further EU initiative about the blasphemy laws. At the recent Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, the EU called for abolition of the death penalty for blasphemy.
The Ahmadi community do not believe that Pakistan's constitution gives them full freedom of faith. A constitutional amendment passed in 1974 declares them to be non-Muslim. That resulted in a change to Pakistan's penal code forbidding them the right to practise their religion as Muslims. Specifically, they cannot openly use traditional Islamic words, phrases or greetings without risking arrest and punishment of up to three years imprisonment plus a fine. That law, like the blasphemy laws, is open to abuse.
We know that there is a great deal of worry among the Ahmadis—indeed, among other minorities—about Pakistan's new anti-terrorist law. In particular, there is a fear that the new offence of civil commotion will be abused. Ahmadis have voiced fears that arrest under the blasphemy laws will result in cases being heard by the new anti-terrorist courts, in which there is no right of appeal. We have urged the Pakistani Government to implement the new laws fairly and responsibly.
Another piece of legislation, the Shariah Bill, has given rise to further concern over the position of non-Muslims in Pakistan. Although the Bill, which has yet to pass Pakistan's Senate—where it has failed to achieve the two thirds majority required if it is to become law—specifically protects the rights of religious minorities, there are fears that its wider effects may be to lower tolerance for religious diversity and women's rights. We do not consider that the proposed Bill is inimical to human rights per se, but we have urged on the Pakistani Government that the new law should adhere to internationally accepted human rights standards.
Those concerns relate to individual legal instruments, but the wider public and political atmosphere is equally important. We are worried by signs that general

intolerance is on the increase. In relation to the Ahmadis in particular, we were greatly concerned by the recent decision of the Punjab provincial assembly to change the name of the principal Ahmadi town in Pakistan, Rabwah. In the wake of that, two senior Ahmadi leaders, Colonel Ayaz Muhammed and Mirza Masroor Ahmed, were charged under the blasphemy laws. We are watching their cases—and others—closely.
From what I have said, hon. Members will recognise that one of the main problems facing the Ahmadis and other religious minorities in Pakistan is the apparent gap between the protection that Pakistan's constitution gives to religious minorities and the drafting of individual laws and their day-to day implementation.
That is the very point that the late Derek Fatchett made during his visit to Pakistan in February, which the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) mentioned. He raised the issue of religious minorities with Pakistan's Minister of Law. He told the Minister of the great concern in the United Kingdom about the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan. The Minister acknowledged the concern outside Pakistan's borders, but said that there was great concern in Pakistan too. He said that the Government of Pakistan were concerned that all religious minorities received the rights given to them under Pakistan's constitution and that he would consult his colleague, the Minister for Religious Affairs, to examine ways to ensure that members of religious minorities are full and equal citizens of Pakistan. We will continue to keep that situation in mind.
We approach this subject as a concerned friend of Pakistan. It is with that in mind that we regularly raise these issues with the Pakistani Government. I am sure that the House will agree that it is important that we recognise where problems lie, but we must also recognise and acknowledge the efforts being made to put things right. Where we can, we must help those efforts.
It was in that spirit that last month, senior Foreign Office officials discussed a wide range of human rights issues with their Pakistani counterparts in Islamabad. The reports of religious persecution, the blasphemy laws and the anti-terrorist law were among the topics discussed. Pakistani officials acknowledged that religious tolerance was a cultural as well as a legal problem. We will of course continue to follow closely the progress on each issue.
It is important that the legal framework is right, and we will continue to urge the Pakistani Government to ensure that their laws are just and justly enforced. However, the key to changing wider social attitudes is education. Tolerance and respect for other cultures, religions and nationalities can be encouraged and, indeed, taught. It is there that we can make a practical difference.
The UK development programme for Pakistan, run by the Department for International Development, is worth approximately £25 million a year. It places a strong emphasis on improvements in human rights in all its projects and includes regular dialogue with the Government of Pakistan, other donors and advocacy groups in Pakistan about human rights issues. Current projects that are directly tackling human rights in Pakistan include a police training project for senior officers. We also hope to be able to do more to promote access for marginalised groups to the criminal justice system.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also sponsors human rights projects in Pakistan. In Karachi, for example, Shell and the FCO have co-sponsored a human rights education project that has produced a human rights textbook on the rights of the child for use in schools It is proving very successful. We are actively pursuing other proposals.
For all the justifiable concern that reports of human rights problems and religious intolerance in Pakistan have caused, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will agree that there remain grounds for considerable hope in Pakistan. The vast majority of the Pakistani people believe in the right to worship for each and every individual according to their beliefs. We believe that the Pakistani Government are sincere in wanting to tackle religious intolerance, which damages their country and its international reputation. We will continue to monitor reports of religious intolerance wherever they may occur and to raise our concerns, but change will not occur overnight. We are ready to offer practical help through our development aid programme.

Mr. Colman: I would like my hon. Friend to take up the points that I made—I realise that he has only just heard them—and raise them at the Commonwealth conference in Durban this autumn. In particular, will he take up the essence of the Harare declaration, which is relevant in this situation?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend anticipated my next sentence. I made a detailed note of the thoughtful suggestions in his excellent speech. I shall write to him in detail on each point. I hope that he would prefer a detailed exposition of the Government's response to my perhaps ad hoc observations.
Religious diversity is a fact in Pakistan, as it is in this country and that should be welcomed. Pakistan is the richer for the presence of religious minorities such as Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus, who will all contribute to the future of that great country.

Sitting suspended.

Telecommunications

1 pm

Mr. Steve Webb: I begin with a confession: recently, I have been spending rather a lot of time in the company of Mr. Bill Gates. Not literally, I hasten to add; I suppose that "virtually" would be the way to put it. I have recently acquired two of his books—one of which was free, although I bought the other. The book that has had a great effect on me is "Business at the Speed of Thought". At the end of about 300 pages of Mr. Gates enthusing about the growth in the internet and what he calls "the web life style"—with a name like mine, I am also very enthusiastic about the Webb life style—it is difficult to avoid the sense that, although one suspects that Mr. Gates has his own agenda on the issue, even if only part of what he describes comes true, there is a tremendous opportunity for British business, education and consumers. It is important that we do not miss that opportunity.
My contention, therefore, is that we must get telecommunications regulation right. It is not unfair to say that the present regulation was largely not framed with the internet in mind. I am well aware that the regulation is under urgent review and I hope that we shall hear more about the direction of the thinking on that matter during the debate. I argue that there is a problem and will cite some statistics in evidence. Obviously, there are different statistics showing how far behind Europe is compared with the United States. A report from Jupiter Communications suggests that only 18 per cent. of United Kingdom households are on-line, compared with 44 per cent. in the US. The report notes that, although that gap will close, and in four years' time, the UK figure may have risen to 41 per cent., by that time, the US figure will be 63 per cent. I am sure that the figures will vary according to definitions, but there is clear evidence of a gap and of a problem that needs to be addressed.
Some other problems are tied in with telecommunications regulation issues—for example, telephone communication charging structures and their implication for the structure and location of British business. Once this debate became common knowledge, I received several emails, including one from a young man aged 20, who lives in Bradley Stoke in my constituency. He described himself as an internet entrepreneur. I am delighted that such people live in my patch, and look forward to meeting that young man. He tells me that, in his business, the huge cost of local calls—running into thousands of pounds—or the cost of dedicated lines means that he has had to locate and register his business in the United States.
My constituency is home to many high-tech companies—Orange, TeleWest, Hewlett Packard and so on—so it should be a natural home for internet entr—epreneurs, even those aged 20. Clearly, if my constituent is being forced to relocate in the US, something somewhere must be wrong.

Mr. Richard Allan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a problem in that a business in the US can service European customers throughout Europe more cheaply than a business based in a European country? Does he agree that regulation is necessary to try to get rid of the cost of telecoms crossing national


boundaries in Europe? Such additional costs make the UK and other European countries uncompetitive compared with the US.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. As chairman of the Select Committee on Information, he is most knowledgable on such matters. His points tie in with what I was saying. If telecommunications regulation is causing British entrepreneurs to site their businesses—either physically or virtually—in the US or elsewhere, there is clearly a problem to be addressed.
Before considering some possible solutions, I want to consider the problem of whether telecom giants—for want of a better word—are stifling the potential for expansion in this area. For example, I was told, by e-mail, about cable modems; that might be one way of facilitating greater access. Henry Jaremko of QE Data Ltd.—someone I had not met before—told me that he had tried for two years to get BT to sort out a cable modem for him. He was told that the company was considering the matter and researching it. He stated:
I talk to friends and colleagues in the Netherlands and in America and they are all using cable modems NOW—they pay … £30 to £50 a month for the service and they get speeds typically five times faster than an average modem … More importantly for the fee … they are ONLINE ALL THE TIME.
He put that last phrase in capitals, which means that he was shouting at me. He continued:
There is no concept of dialling—their computers are permanently wired to the net from their homes or offices.

Mr. Ian Bruce: As they have initiated this welcome debate, I am sure that Liberal Democrats were only too pleased to receive messages. Last night, I had dinner with representatives from several telecoms companies; they told me that, within weeks—literally—we shall receive announcements from several sources about a fixed fee, on-line all the time, to an internet provider. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we should get the regulation right. The regulation is already in place; the market will provide the solution for the UK. Despite the fact that our telephone calls are already cheap, he is right to identify the problems on the internet side, but I think that the solution will occur soon.

Mr. Webb: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will be aware of the latest developments and will be able to brief us on them.
I do not know how new cable modems are, but Mr. Jaremko says that other European companies seem to have managed to take up that new technology. Is BT a slumbering giant? Is that why the company has not moved as fast as it might have done to take up that technology? I have also been briefed about digital subscriber loops. That is a new world to me, but it seems to be another form of technology that would provide a means for extensive internet access. However, again there seems to be a problem with an incumbent supplier, who is perhaps not as innovative as possible.
We have a series of problems. What could be the cause? One obvious candidate—although it is not the sole problem—is the cost of local calls. In the US, local calls

are free in many circumstances, whereas in the UK, local calls are metered with a 5p minimum charge. That 5p charge may be relevant when one is going on-line, receiving e-mails and coming off-line, and it may discourage people from doing that regularly. However, my key concern is the metering of local calls and its implications. In terms of e-commerce, I draw an analogy with being charged for window shopping in the high street. Retailers would be appalled if that were the case, yet we make people pay by the minute for window shopping on the internet.
Some people might respond that Freeserve has come in and everyone is on-line so the problem is solved. However, we are talking not only about people being on-line, but about using the internet as part of their "life style"—as a servant in business, education and leisure. Being on-line and having access is only part of the battle, we then have to use the thing. There is evidence that usage increases when metered charges are abolished and replaced with fees. When America OnLine moved from one structure to the other in 1996, monthly use went up from an average of 14 minutes to 33 minutes over three months. The average figure is now an hour a day for that company. Of course, there are limits, but, if the internet is to be a servant and is to be part of our lives, we must remove the marginal cost to a greater or a lesser extent.
The Minister will probably recall that, when I wrote to him on this subject, his response was that average telecom charges are low in the UK. However, I am concerned not only with the average, but with the margins. Once one is on-line and has paid the set-up costs, one wants the marginal costs to be low to provide an incentive. Clearly, the costs are not as low here as they are in the US.
Assuming that greater coverage and use are good, what should we do? I make one query of that assumption. I am enthusiast in all those matters—I suppose that enthusiast is a euphemism for an anorak—but internet content is also relevant. As a parent, I am aware that there is material on the internet that I do not want my children to see, just as there is material on the top shelf of the newsagent that I do not want them to see. However, rationing by price—getting people to come off the internet—has nothing to do with that problem. It is vital that the problem is addressed, but we are tackling it in a haphazard and ineffective way. I have reservations about teenagers in their bedrooms spending hours on the net unsupervised. However, the issues that we are raising in the debate are not inconsistent with tackling that problem.
What can be done? The Campaign for Unmetered Telecommunications, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, has been energetic and effective in publicising the issue. It has an excellent website at www.unmetered.org, and I have spent many happy minutes surfing it and then getting off-line. It quotes the "father of the web", Tim Berners-Lee, who says:
universal internet access for all in a country is very important. To be practical, internet connections must be permanent … The time taken to dial up over a telephone line makes many uses of the internet … prohibitively bothersome. Regulatory systems and charging which support the status quo in which the telephone system is used to dial every time the internet is used hobble a country's ability to use the network—it is a bit like asking a motor vehicle to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag. It is forcing the new technology to operate in the mode of the old technology.
That final observation is a telling one. We are not talking about more people having PCs with modems in the back, or more people hopping on and off-line. We are


talking about—to use the awful phrase—the web life style, in which the internet is integral to our activities, but as a servant, not a master.
America OnLine has just surveyed more than 11,000 of its customers, almost all of whom cited local call costs as the main barrier to greater internet use. I know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. We are talking not about free local calls, but about unmetered local calls coupled with some sort of subscription charge—that is, trying to get marginal costs down and so increasing use.
Some might say that that is happening anyway and that the market will produce that result because, if that is what customers want, suppliers will provide it. However, it strikes me as inherently unlikely that the commercial interests of BT in a regulated environment will coincide exactly with society's best interests. BT has a job to do: it exists to make profits within the constraints imposed on it. Why should its pricing policy be identical to that which society wants in order to maximise internet use among lower income households, students and so on? Such a coincidence is unlikely to occur.
The market has made some progress, but there is no guarantee that it will take us where we want to go. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and others would say that we are getting there: for example, Screaming.Net—a phrase I have been dying to get into Hansard—set up a freefone access system, but there are strings attached in that the customer has to change phone company and go over to Localtel. Mysteriously, BT has been slow in getting people over to Localtel: it claims that it underestimated demand, but Localtel says that it forewarned BT of the demand and that BT has simply not coped. The idea that BT would enthusiastically commit resources to moving its customers to someone else's business is hard to swallow—it would not be surprising if it did the bare minimum.
Last weekend, without making a lot of fuss—the announcement was made on the internet, because the company did not want many people to know, which is telling—BT gave free 48-hour internet access to BT internet subscribers. The company did not publicise that service, because it was not sure that it could cope with large-scale use. Strangely enough, the service proved extremely popular, but, once again, there were strings attached: it was provided only at the weekend, customers were logged off after 20 minutes if they did not do anything, and they were restricted to a maximum of 12 hours on-line at a time.
Perhaps we are inching in the right direction, but I doubt that the cultural shift that is necessary will take place without active Government intervention. In short, we need a new approach to those issues. Tim Berners-Lee says:
Personally, having the luxury of a permanent … connection at home I notice the change of role a computer plays in the home—it becomes immeasurably more friendly. One is much more inclined to order things, pay bills, and check news and weather using it when one does not have to wait and bother with dialling into a service provider.
It seems to me that British skills and temperament are well suited to taking advantage of these great technological advances and to taking a world lead in using the internet for business, education and leisure. We have a great opportunity, but we are behind in the game, and the reasons for that can be found in the regulatory structure. I hope the Minister will assure us that he is

urging the Office of Telecommunications, Oftel, to encourage, not incremental change, but a cultural shift in the way in which we perceive the internet, which will be to the benefit of all our citizens.

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): I thank the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for raising such a vital issue and congratulate him on securing the debate. I share his enthusiasm for the liberating and empowering potential of the internet for every individual and every business, large and small. He is right to identify that potential and the Government wholly agree with him.
I agree that we are in a transitional period. The technology is remarkably new—in fact it is remarkable in every way. If I may be a little extravagant at this point, never before in human history has a technology with such a profoundly transforming potential become available to so many people so rapidly. Inevitably, all sorts of questions arise about how we as a society cope with such an incredible new technology and, during this transitional period, we have to consider carefully every aspect of our actions in that respect.
I also agree that the widespread availability of a speedy access infrastructure and a high-quality backbone telecommunications network that is available at an affordable price are vital to the growth of the internet. Ultimately, those things will be best provided through effective competition in both telecommunications infrastructure and in the services provided through it.
That competition is already at work in the UK to give us the networks that we need in order to lead the world in this field early in the next century. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that effective competition depends on effective and appropriate regulation. We have one of the most liberalised telecommunications markets in the world. As a result of competition, the cost of calls is steadily decreasing, and that is to the benefit of all internet users. I shall run through the range of competition in this country, which is remarkable for the rate at which it has increased over the past few years.
In fixed-line telecommunications, 45 domestic public telecommunications operators are now licensed, an increase of nearly one third since May 1997, when there were 33. They provide their own infrastructure and services in competition with the former monopolist, BT. Three major cable television companies offer telecommunications services over their lines. In March 1997, there were 125 active cable franchises passing 8.2 million homes, with 2.3 million homes connected. By January this year, the number of active cable franchises had increased to 134, with 11.5 million homes—more than half of all the homes in the UK—passed by cable and approximately 3.5 million connected. Those figures show an increase of more than 50 per cent. in less than two years.
More than 14.5 million people subscribe to the four mobile phone networks—a figure that has more than doubled since March 1997, when only 7.1 million people subscribed. The mobile phone market is now worth approximately £3.5 billion, or roughly one third of the fixed-line market. New pricing packages mean that the mobile phone market is increasingly competitive with fixed-line services. More than 100 companies are licensed


to provide international facilities. The DTI has licensed 73 new operators of international services since the general election, and BT's share of the international market is now less than 52 per cent.
As a result of all that competition, call prices have fallen by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1984, and there have been even more dramatic price cuts for international calls. However, competition is still increasing: the roll-out of cable and other fixed-line telecommunications is progressing steadily and, later this year, we are to auction off the third generation of mobile telephone licences, which will dramatically increase competition in that sector. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that third generation will enable the provision of internet access through mobile phones.
We have an effective competitive framework for telecommunications in this country, but the hon. Gentleman was right to remind us that we must not be complacent. The Government are not complacent and are working to ensure that the regulatory framework develops in a way that continues to encourage competition and the provision of new services available to everybody.
A range of EC directives has reduced regulatory burdens and promoted competition across the EU. We continue to work with other member states on the 1999 review of the telecommunications regulatory framework in the EU to ensure that that process continues. Within the UK, the Government are reforming telecommunications regulation to ensure that it continues to promote competition effectively. For example, we are streamlining the process for modifying licences and we are consulting on a new appeals mechanism. In the longer term, as the hon. Member for Northavon mentioned, the Government are considering more fundamental reform to move away from the current prohibition-based licensing regime to a more flexible system. We shall publish further ideas on that in the follow-up to the convergence Green Paper later this month.
I receive much correspondence about the specific question of internet access. At present, most consumers access the internet through dial-up services—so-called narrowband access. That can be slow and cumbersome and, as the hon. Member for Northavon graphically described, is not necessarily the best way to access the internet. A key current issue is the provision of broadband access in the local loop. The question is how can we provide faster internet access and the ability to transfer much more data at high speeds, because that is the key to the effective roll-out of the technology.
Many new technologies are coming on stream to help to give consumers access to broadband services in the home. The hon. Member for Northavon mentioned digital subscriber line—or DSL—technology. Cable, satellite and terrestrial digital television services incorporating new interactive services will become available later this year. Cable modems, in particular, offer the prospect of much faster internet access without the need to dial up every time the user wants to go on to the net. As I have mentioned, third-generation mobiles will be another key innovation. We hope shortly to launch a consultation on making new spectrum available for fixed radio broadband access services.

Mr. Webb: The Minister mentioned cable modems. The chap who e-mailed me was concerned that those

have been available elsewhere for a couple of years. He approached BT and it said that it was getting round to it. Is the Minister worried that leaving it to competition is not making the advances in technology available quickly enough?

Mr. Wills: I shall address the impact of the current competitive situation in a moment, but we believe that competition is the best way and is working. 1 do not want to sound complacent, but all the lessons of recent history tell us that competition is the most effective way to roll out the technology, although that does not mean that there is no place for regulation.
OFFEL has just finished consultation on access to bandwidth which aimed to determine whether there were barriers to the commercial provision of high bandwidth services to residential and small business users, especially services using that approach. It also considered whether OFTEL needed to intervene to allow competing network operators to offer such services directly to customers, by renting BT's copper wires—the so-called local loop unbundling.
The outcome of that consultation will have a significant impact on the UK telecoms market and in particular on achieving our goal of affordable high-speed internet access to consumers. We are in close touch with OFTEL and I understand that it expects to publish its conclusions later this month. I hope that the hon. Member for Northavon will forgive me, but I cannot pre-empt that process. However, I can assure him that the issue is at the forefront of our minds.
The hon. Gentleman asked what effect competition is having and he gave us some figures. He is aware of the Government's intention to make this country the best place to do business electronically by 2002. We are making progress. More than 1 million people in the UK became internet users for the first time during the third quarter of 1998. Worldwide, the speed of take-up is unprecedented. We should not only compare the position in the past in this country, but examine what our competitors are doing.
Some 16 per cent. of our population had internet access by 1998 compared to 28 per cent. in the US. We are behind the US and we have to catch up, but the comparison with other competitors is better. We have higher figures than Japan at 11 per cent. and much of Europe—only 9 per cent. of the population of Germany have internet access and only 5 per cent. in France. Those comparisons were made before the recent developments in internet pricing, such as Freeserve, and we expect those figures to increase considerably. However, our competitors are also increasing access and we cannot be complacent. Our recent benchmarking survey showed that more than 60 per cent. of UK business now has internet access. More than 50 per cent. has a website. Website use has almost doubled and e-commerce has trebled since 1997. We have seen faster growth in that area than either Japan or the US. We had 30 per cent. growth in internet penetration among British business, and 40 per cent. growth in website penetration since 1998. That compares to 6 and 11 per cent. growth in Japan and 20 and 30 per cent. growth in the US. I accept that the US is starting from a higher base, but we have made considerable advances that show that competition is working.
The ambitious target that we set for 1 million small and medium-sized companies to be hooked up to a network by 2002 will probably be achieved by 2000. The technologies are rolling out quickly and, as I have said, that shows that competition is working.
I know that the issue of the cost of access is of great concern to the hon. Member for Northavon and many other people. Is the cost affecting the take-up of the technology? The short answer is no. Of course cost is a consideration, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is a significant barrier to take-up, especially for businesses. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we are just below the OECD average costs for internet access for peak times and, at off-peak times, we are cheaper than the US. The hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished economist, will understand that there is no such thing as a free service: it must be paid for at some point in the process. The question is whether the packages are put together in a way that encourages as many people and businesses as possible to take them up.
I would not like the hon. Member for Northavon to be deluded about the possibility of free access, but companies are free to offer whatever innovative tariffing packages they wish. We have seen a great explosion of such packages in recent months. For example, Kingston Communications in Hull recently introduced a package of £12.77 per month plus 5.5p per call, no matter how long. Cable and Wireless Communications offer combined internet access and telephone charges from £5.99 per month. That includes the internet service provider subscription and up to 12 hours free online each month. NTL has launched a service providing high bandwidth internet connections for a flat rate of £40 a month. It is likely that such services will be rolled out more widely in the coming months. In addition, some internet service providers are now offering internet access on freefone numbers such as 0800 at off—peak times or weekends. The Government welcome such innovation in pricing packages which are delivering for consumers.
The hon. Member for Northavon is right to say that the market will not necessarily provide in all areas and the Government will have to step in. We are doing so to ensure that every school in the country is hooked up to the internet by 2002. We have made remarkable progress. In April 1998, only 20 per cent. of schools were hooked up and only 10 per cent. of those were connected through an integrated services data network link. In April 1999, just a year later, 40 per cent. of all schools were connected, including 30 per cent. via an ISDN. Our target, which we are confident of meeting, is 100 per cent. of schools connected by 2002, including 90 per cent. through an ISDN link. We must also ensure that we do not create a society of the information rich and the information poor. We have a program and a raft of initiatives—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now turn to the next debate.

Surface Water Charges

Jacqui Smith: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise an issue that is causing significant financial problems for community and public bodies in my constituency, throughout the county of Worcestershire and I suspect the entire area covered by Severn Trent Water. I draw the Minister's attention particularly to the effects of the change in charging for surface water drainage for non-domestic customers that has been implemented by that company. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Director General of Water Services considers this change and its disproportionate and damaging effects in detail.
The duties of the regulator, as laid down in the Water Industries Act 1991, state that the director general
has a duty to customers to ensure that no undue preference is shown and that there is no undue discrimination in the way companies fix and recover charges, and that rural customers are protected".
My argument is that Severn Trent Water's surface water drainage charging policy does, and will, discriminate against non-domestic customers who are least able to pay and that it will also disadvantage rural non-domestic customers.
Surface water drainage is part of the sewerage service offered by water companies and, until 1990, Severn Trent Water charged all its customers on the basis of rateable value. Since then, new customers and those with substantially altered properties have been charged on the basis of surface area. The company is now in the midst of a three-year plan to convert all existing customers from the rateable value basis for calculating charges to a system based on the total site area that the properties occupy. That transfer of the vast majority of non-domestic properties is causing the difficulties that I shall address. It is also important to note that my research and contacts with other water companies suggest that no other water company has chosen to make that change.
As the director general points out in his "Report on Tariff Structures and Charges 1999-2000", companies currently charge for surface drainage in a variety of ways. For example, they charge as part of foul sewerage charges through the volumetric tariff, as a flat fee within the fixed charge or through a combination of both, by reference to the rateable value of the property, or via a charge related to the surface area that drains to the public sewer. Severn Trent Water appears to be the only company that has chosen the last option.
I accept that there appears to be a certain logic in charging for drainage on the basis of the size of the area drained. However, as I will demonstrate, the results of that change in practice have been far from fair or logical. The director general may have foreseen some of those difficulties in his 1991 report on water payments when he said that, although surface and highway drainage raised a number of charging issues, recovering the costs associated with those services by reference to the volume of water delivered to customers—that is, instead of the surface area—might be simpler than, and just as good as, other approaches. When I look in detail at the effects of Severn Trent Water's decision, I believe increasingly that the director general was right.
I want to consider in detail the implications of those changes on two types of customers: first, village halls and community centres; and, secondly, schools within


Worcestershire. I was first alerted to this issue about a year ago when a village hall in Feckenham in my constituency contacted me. Prior to September 1997, it had paid water bills on the basis of its rateable value. In September 1997, a meter was fitted and it therefore moved to the new site area method of calculating surface water drainage. The effect of the change was a 310 per cent. increase in the charge for sewerage services. The new sewerage charge would have been more than the total water and sewerage bill before the change and the surface water drainage element was by far the largest component of the bill. We should remember that the charge was levied for the service of draining rain water from a property. Can that really be the most costly part of the provision of water and sewerage services?
An administrative difficulty associated with the change became evident at this point. After the village hall appealed to Severn Trent Water, the company surveyed the site properly and agreed that some parts did not drain into its sewers and could therefore be removed from the site area calculation. To the company's credit, it has clearly been willing to put right the many mistakes made in calculating the surface area. However, those mistakes occurred originally because the work of estimating the surface area was put out to contractors who referred simply to ordnance survey maps and made no attempt to determine whether any parts of the total surface area, such as playing fields or lawns, did not drain to the areas served by Severn Trent Water. Furthermore, although the site area taken into consideration was reduced, the Feckenham village hall was left with a 165 per cent. increase in its sewerage charge.
Severn Trent Water and Ofwat have made much of the company's willingness to consider an abatement when part of a site does not drain into the company's sewer. However, for the vast majority of the community and public services affected, that will be just a drop in the ocean—or should I say the sewer—compared with the significant effect of the shift from rateable value to surface area charging.
Following my intervention and pressure from the village hall committee, the Feckenham village hall received a stay of execution as Severn Trent Water agreed that the basis of its surface water charging could revert to rateable value. However, without a change in policy, the village hall volunteers will have to meet the increase next April. The Hereford and Worcester community council and Action with Communities in Rural England—ACRE—have also highlighted the difficulties caused by the company's policy, providing examples of one Worcestershire village community centre that is facing an £800 increase in its water bill and another village hall that will see its bill increase from £550 to £2,000 per year.
Following publicity about the issue, I was contacted by Worcestershire county council which expressed its concern about the effect of the change in water charges on its public buildings, particularly schools. Due to the administrative difficulties and complications inherent in the new system and disputes about the surface areas that should be included in the calculations, Worcestershire county council only recently received detailed information from Severn Trent Water about the effects of the charging changes. The overall effect of this change alone will increase water bills in the county by nearly £200,000.

One school in Inkberrow in my constituency faces a yearly increase of £2,560 or 1,106 per cent.—in its water bill. Another school faces an increase of 779 per cent. and one of the smallest first schools in the town faces an increase of £787—or 449 per cent.—in its water bill.

Mr. David Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. As a fellow Worcestershire Member of Parliament, I assure the House that this problem affects the whole county. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government did not allocate extra money to health and education in order to top up Severn Trent Water's dividend? Does she agree also that this problem affects not only schools and community associations but commercial premises? A chain manufacturer in my constituency faced a 250 per cent. increase in his water bill. After we argued the case with the water company, the increase was reduced to 6 per cent. Throughout the Severn Trent Water area, businesses face rising water bills, and the jobs of our constituents are under threat merely so that that company's already massive profits can increase.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I know that he has been active in raising the issue.
My particular concern is schools. In my constituency, water bills for schools will increase by a total of £24,000 next April. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that money must come from tight education budgets when, as we all agree, it should be spent in the classroom to improve standards.
When I wrote to Severn Trent Water and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions last year about my concerns, both pointed out that any change to charges will result in winners and losers. I agree, but in this case we must consider who will be the losers and the disproportionate extent to which they will lose.

Mr. Richard Burden: Like my hon. Friend, I have raised this issue with Severn Trent Water and Ofwat and received the same reply about winners and losers. The problem does not relate to rural areas alone, although my hon. Friend rightly stressed their importance, but to urban areas, commercial premises, schools and public buildings. Surely we need more research to find out who are the losers and whether some are subject to undue discrimination. I asked Ofwat and Severn Trent Water what research they did before embarking on the policy, and I await the response with interest.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I shall refer to that later in my speech. I am grateful that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the problems caused by the charges set by Severn Trent Water.
The company has argued that the change will be revenue neutral, but if that is the case, some of its non-domestic customers must think that Christmas has come early. Of course, anyone who substantially gained from the change would be unlikely to contact their Member of Parliament to complain, but given Severn Trent Water's assertion and the village halls and schools


that are facing the significant losses that I have outlined, it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, incumbent on the company to provide evidence to the director general about the customers who will gain from the change and the extent to which they will benefit.
To return to my point about the nature of the losers, I am concerned that the losses appear to be hitting community and public facilities. The effect of the change is regressive in that it hits services that have little ability to find money to pay the increased charges. The determining factor for the organisations that have been hit badly by the change is the relationship between the rateable value of their property and the surface area that it occupies. In other words, the losers are the non-domestic customers whose property has a low rateable value but a high surface area. Those properties tend to be public buildings and they are predominantly in rural areas.
It is not only the nature of the losers that causes concern but the extent of their losses. Increases of hundreds of per cent. in sewerage charges are not isolated occurrences. It is not reasonable for any customer of a utility to face such enormous increases. Those increases are particularly unreasonable when they will also have social costs. Furthermore, the distorting effect of the change is demonstrated by the large proportion of the overall bill that surface water charges now constitute for many non-domestic customers. That cannot be a true reflection of the costs involved, which the director general set as a priority for charging schemes.
Having outlined the difficulties being caused by the change to surface water charging by Severn Trent Water, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to undertake to instruct the water regulator—the Director General of Water Services—to consider in detail the effects of the change, with particular reference, as I have already said, to where the losses occur, the disproportionate nature of the increases and the extent to which the new system fulfils his demand that charges should more clearly reflect the costs of delivering the service.
I am encouraged that my hon. Friend will be able to do that following the extension of the director general's powers to approve charging schemes introduced in the Water Industry Bill. I am further encouraged by a letter sent to ACRE in February in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment stated:

Water companies will have the prime responsibility for considering and proposing their charges schemes. However, these will be subject to approval by OFWAT, and Ministers will have powers to ensure that particular issues are addressed in charges schemes".
Later in the letter, he stated:
where charges for sewerage are covered by companies' charges schemes—including, for instance, surface water drainage—it will be for the Director General, under the provisions of the Bill, to consider whether to approve such charges schemes.
The director general should outline in his consideration whether Severn Trent Water should allow non-domestic customers to opt for their surface water charges to continue to be based on rateable values. That would be appropriate given the repeal of section 145 of the Water Industry Act 1991 in the Water Industry Bill. In its literature, Severn Trent Water has used the need to comply with section 145 as the justification for the change. Now that the need has been removed, it should offer customers the option to stay with rateable values for surface water charging.
The social costs caused to non-commercial and non-profit-making organisations by those large increases in water charges highlight the demand of organisations such as ACRE that a third tier of water charging should exist for such customers, who fall between commercial and household customers. Severn Trent Water has recognised that there is a distinction to be made because it was willing to defer the introduction of the higher charges for customers and properties that it defined as "sensitive". Those included registered charities and any other non-commercial or non-profit-making organisation. That sensitivity will not disappear next April when Severn Trent Water intends to impose the increased charges. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that the company should recognise the particular position of those community and public bodies and find a third way to deal with their water charges.
In conclusion, this change to surface water charging will impose significant social costs; it will hit those who are least able to pay; it is administratively difficult for all involved; and it will drain resources from vital public services such as education. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me and other hon. Friends in resisting the change and seeking a fairer solution.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) on securing this debate and for setting out clearly why surface water drainage charges are a major local concern. I thank her for her generosity in affording time to my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) to express the concerns of their constituents which should be brought to the attention of the House.
Water is an essential service, vital for life and health. The Government believe that a charging system must reflect that fact, ensuring that customers are not deprived of water for drinking, washing, cooking and sanitation. The principles behind our policy are to provide a system of charges that are fair and affordable, particularly for vulnerable customers, to protect public health, to ensure that water supplies are used in a sustainable way and to protect the aquatic environment. We believe that consumer choice should lie at the heart of the new system.
Our consultation document, "Water Charging in England and Wales—A New Approach", set out a number of proposals that we believe offer customers greater fairness and choice. We are now taking our proposals forward through the Water Industry Bill.
It cannot be right for anyone to be deprived of essential water because they cannot afford to pay their water bill. The loss of water supply can have a severe effect not only on the individual consumer but on wider public health concerns. The Water Industry Bill therefore prohibits household disconnection, and ensures that premises providing key services to the community cannot be deprived of their water supply because of non-payment. That provision extends to institutions such as schools, hospitals and nursing homes and children's homes.
We also recognise that some customers—those with high essential use of water—could suffer severe hardship if required to pay on the basis of a measured bill. We propose to ensure that targeted and effective protection


is available for vulnerable households. Those entitled to protection should be large families on low incomes and those with medical conditions requiring a high use of water, although we would be happy to consider targeted proposals to protect other groups if a case could be made that they would suffer severe hardship.
We wish to extend customer choice in water charging as far as is practicable. Household customers should have a right to remain on an unmeasured charge when they are using water for essential purposes only. In ruling out universal compulsory metering, we have accepted that meters may suit the circumstances of some customers with low water use. Therefore, household customers should be able to opt for a meter, to be installed free, with the protection that those who do so may revert to an unmeasured charge within one year. In addition, the Bill will remove the deadline for use of rateable values in calculating charges. That fulfils our commitment to continue permitting water companies to use rateable value for charging, avoiding the need for significant upheavals in charging arrangements.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said, the Director General of Water Services is responsible for economic regulation by controlling companies' overall price limits, ensuring that changes to charges, such as those that my hon. Friend has mentioned, cannot be used as a device to boost company income and profits. The director general also has a responsibility to ensure that charges do not reflect undue preference for, or unduly discriminate against, any class or group of customers. However, the director general does not currently have more specific powers over the individual elements of companies' charges.
The Water Industry Bill will give the director general new powers to approve water companies' charging schemes, and will enable Ministers to give the director general guidance on the exercise of those powers. That represents an important new assurance for customers, and will put greater pressure on companies to consider carefully and thoroughly the impact of their proposals. It is essential that water companies create charging arrangements that are responsive to their customers' concerns and reflect local needs.
Severn Trent Water—as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said—charges households for surface and highway drainage by reference to the rateable value of the property. Properties without a rateable value pay a charge related to property type. Severn Trent Water—again as my hon. Friend stated—has embarked on a programme of charging non-household customers on a site area basis. Its intention is that all non-household customers will be charged on that basis by March 2000.
Anglian Water, Welsh Water and South West Water charge for surface and highway drainage through volumetric charge. North West Water, Northumbrian Water, Southern Water, Thames Water and Wessex Water include surface and highway drainage in their standing charges. Northumbrian Water is the only company other than Severn Trent Water that charges non-household properties by a method different from that applied to households. Those companies use a method that refers to rateable value rather than a site area based charging system.
The Government understand the concerns that have been expressed about Severn Trent Water's method of charging non-household properties for surface water drainage. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch had occasion to say, any change to underlying charging methods will be likely to throw up winners and losers. Planning how to handle the consequence of change, including identifying likely losers and developing transitional arrangements as necessary, must be a key part of considering the case for change.
It appears that, under a change to charges based on surface area, premises with high rateable values but small sites will gain, but premises with low rateable values and large sites will lose. We understand that Severn Trent Water has agreed to delay the introduction of a site area based charge in some cases on the ground of merit. We also understand that, where properties have significant areas of grass, garden or car park without a drainage system that connects with the main drain, it has agreed to remove those areas from the measured assessment of those properties.
Anyone faced with large increases as a result of the change introduced by Severn Trent Water should contact the company with a view to establishing that the whole of their site indeed drains to the public sewerage system, and the possibility of phasing in the increase in charges. If they are not satisfied with the company's response, they may wish to take up the matter with Ofwat's central customer service committee. That committee has the duty to represent the views of water customers and to investigate their complaints.
Surface water drainage is not a service provided by sewerage undertakers to every customer. Many customers are not aware that they pay such a charge. Much surface water soaks into the ground where it falls, or flows into soakaways on the premises rather than public sewers. Even though in such cases some companies offer a voluntary rebate, rebates are not universal and the onus is on customers to seek them out.
Sewerage charges on customers' bills seldom identify separately the three elements of charge: foul water, surface water and highway drainage. Customers do not, therefore, have full information on the cost of each of those services. The Government believe customers should be aware of all elements of their bills and would expect water companies to ensure that they are separately identified.
The Director General of Water Services also wants more transparency in the way in which customers are billed. Companies which charge for surface and highway drainage through a fixed charge have been asked to show the amount separately on bills, and all companies have been asked to provide, at the very least, an explanation of their charges.
In principle, we consider that all customers who can demonstrate that they do not receive a specific sewerage service should be entitled to an appropriate abatement of charges. Therefore, when customers are only connected for foul drainage, charges levied by companies should not cover surface drainage. In such circumstances, the director general would like companies to provide abatements in charges. The Government support that approach, as we


recognise that surface water drainage for some users can make up a substantial element of the overall charge—a point most tellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch.
Under the legislative framework that we inherited from the previous Government, water companies have considerable freedom in deciding how to levy charges on customers, including widespread powers to insist on compulsory metering, as well as the method of calculating surface water drainage charges.

Mr. Lock: When the Minister for the Environment contacts the Director General of Water Services on—quite rightly—the structure of abatements in charges for properties that have soakaways, will he ensure that the forms that companies issue to customers who want to apply for such abatements are simplified? I recently came across a case of Severn Trent Water requiring detailed plans—which the average householder simply could not produce—to prove that the customers qualified for an abatement to which they were clearly entitled.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is debatable whether I have ever heard anything more ridiculous than Severn Trent Water's requirements of its customers in that regard, particularly as I would imagine that many of its customers are

somewhat elderly and would have some difficulty in reading any form. Being required to discover plans and forward them is absurd.
We are taking action to deliver our manifesto commitment to pursue tough and effective regulation of the water industry in the interests of customers and the environment. The Water Industry Bill that is before Parliament will make the charges of water companies subject to tighter regulation. The Government plan to consult soon on the draft guidance that Ministers will give to the director general on the use of his new powers. I shall ensure that a copy is sent not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch but to my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest and for Northfield as part of the consultation process.
I am sure that the director general will have noted the issues debated today, and will bear them in mind when considering future charges in the Severn Trent Water area and, indeed, the rest of England and Wales. I have little doubt that, if the directors of Severn Trent Water do not notice this debate, they will have it drawn to their attention.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — National Health Service

Mr. Desmond Swayne: When he last met representatives of the National Health Service Confederation in Wales to discuss the funding of the national health service. [85155]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): I plan soon to meet representatives of the NHS Confederation in Wales. I have had meetings with representatives of all the NHS trusts and health authorities in Wales, to address the very real problems that we inherited from the previous Government.

Mr. Swayne: Audit Commission figures show that the NHS in Wales is running an in-year deficit of £9 million, as compared with a mere £700,000 deficit in 1996–97. In the coming year, there will be additional cost pressures, in the form of 5 per cent. medical inflation, £30 million in increased drugs bills and £5 million in medical negligence claims. The NHS Confederation has said that, this year, tough decisions will have to be taken. Will the Secretary of State tell us what those tough decisions will be?

Mr. Michael: The NHS Confederation is right that tough decisions will have to be taken, because of the state of chaos—the absolute disgrace—in which the NHS in Wales was left by the previous Government. In a briefing on the matter dealt with in the hon. Gentleman's question, the NHS Confederation welcomed the extra £193 million in funding for the health service in Wales, and noted the high level of contributions being made by the current Government.
The hon. Gentleman needs to understand both the state of chaos left by the previous Government, and the very positive action that the current Government are taking to deal with that chaos, which includes providing an extra £1 billion over the next three years for the NHS in Wales. Perhaps he would like to take a more informed interest in the health service in Wales.

Mr. Win Griffiths: In my right hon. Friend's preparations for the meeting with the NHS Confederation, what consideration has been given to specialist regional health services? I believe that some of those issues have to be re-examined.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right about that. An expert has been appointed to head up the commissioning of specialist services in Wales, to try to ensure that we direct the finances of the NHS in Wales to where they are most needed: to patient care and to dealing with our priorities, in both health care and health gain.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Secretary of State agree with the NHS in Wales that there is a funding crisis of the utmost severity, and that only one of the consequences of the crisis is a block on the capital

programme, which is affecting—among many others—the renal dialysis programme in Aberystwyth and the Porthmadog cottage hospital? Is it not time the Government really accepted that the NHS is underfunded, partly because of the Government's insistence on sticking with Tory spending plans for the first two years of their Administration? What will seriously be done about easing the situation and releasing trusts in Wales from the crippling debt burdens that they carry?

Mr. Michael: The real crisis is one of financial management at both the health authority and trust level. The hon. Gentleman's old area of Dyfed Powys is one that gives me particular concern, and he will know of the action that I am taking to try to deal with that concern. As for finance, I underline the fact that I have promised £01 billion extra for the NHS in Wales. I have announced new spending for this year of £240 million for the NHS in Wales, which will give health authorities £193 million more in their discretionary allocations. That is a 10.3 uplift, which is unprecedented.
The problem is that resources in the NHS in Wales are not reaching the places that they need to reach. I have made it quite clear that the new Assembly Secretary for Health and I will show leadership and work with everyone who is willing to co-operate in trying to clear up an undoubtedly unacceptable situation. However, expressing unjustified fears on matters such as specific closures will not help the situation. Nevertheless, we have to engage with the situation, which is very serious.

Mr. John Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra funds are not being used to provide orthopaedic beds at Llandough hospital, with which I know he is familiar? Constituents of mine are waiting ever longer for standard orthopaedic operations. Some elderly constituents are going through the cruel experience of being allocated a time for an operation only to have it cancelled at the last minute. The Government provided extra funds to meet emergency admissions to the hospital, but those admissions are now going to orthopaedic beds, so my constituents are waiting. Will he intervene before 1 July to try to do something about the problem?

Mr. Michael: The situation is unacceptable. An additional consultant is being appointed and additional beds are being made available. My hon. Friend has illustrated another aspect of the chaos in the NHS in Wales. I said in my statement in December and in my comments on NHS finances in 1 April that the situation was unacceptable. People should be able to depend on the services being there when they need them and on the NHS as a whole operating in a co-operative and positive way to provide those services. I accept his point about orthopaedic services; it is under review.

Dr. Liam Fox: One of the problems facing the health service in Wales and elsewhere is junior doctors' hours. Hon. Members on both sides will welcome the plans being put forward by the Welsh Assembly to reduce junior doctors' hours, but we are all appalled by the Government's plans to seek the freedom to increase the average number of hours that junior doctors are allowed to work.
Junior doctors' hours were substantially reduced under the Conservative Government. Does the Secretary of State believe that it is sensible or safe for junior doctors in Wales or elsewhere to work for 65 hours a week? Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Health, who wants an increase in junior doctors' hours, or with the Health Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, who plans to reduce those hours?

Mr. Michael: It does not help if the Conservatives repeat old inaccuracies. There is no difference between Government policy and what the Assembly Health Secretary has said. She corrected some of the old rumours and misapprehensions about what the Government are doing and what is being done by Europe. Her statement was accurate and was consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said. She gave the position as it is. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman studied what has been said and understood it.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health service in Wales faces many challenges that Assembly Members need to address in a coolheaded and workmanlike manner? Does he share the sense of dismay that many people in Wales feel at the fact that Plaid Cymru and Conservative Members engaged in the childish tactic of walking out of the National Assembly for Wales yesterday? That tactic was condoned by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and by the Conservatives.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend should not stir the right hon. Member for Caernarfon up, because he might disappear from this Chamber as well, and we would not want that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the NHS in Wales faces major challenges. When the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales he withdrew many of the checks and balances from the Welsh Office management of the NHS. We are paying the price for his mistakes. I hope that we shall have co-operation from all parties to re-establish the NHS as a dependable service that provides care when it is needed. As my hon. Friend suggests, that requires a positive and reasonable approach from everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions — Small Businesses

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the prospects for the small business sector in Wales. [85156]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): There is a revival of small business confidence in Wales, supported by many Welsh Office initiatives. Following the transfer of functions, the issue will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

Mr. Bercow: I am afraid that that answer wins a gold medal only for complacency. In the first quarter of 1999 there were 444 business failures—an increase of more than 40 per cent. on the equivalent period last year—and 3,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing industry alone. Business optimism has fallen faster in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman not

recognise the gravity of the situation? Since he took office, how many times has he bothered to meet his counterparts from the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the crippling over-regulation of small businesses, which has been gathering pace and has been exacerbated throughout his tenure of office?

Mr. Hain: I have lost count of the number of times I have met my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss concerns from business in Wales and other matters. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What have you achieved?"] Our achievement has been to take seriously the burden of red tape and over-regulation that was heaped upon the business community by the previous Government. As the Member representing Buckingham, the hon. Gentleman does not have a clue about what is going on in Wales. That is shown by the fact that the Welsh Federation of Small Businesses recently issued a statement expressing the small business sector's confidence in the future of the Welsh economy. That is because interest rates are at a 33-year record low, corporation tax for small businesses is at a record low of 10p, and tax for self-employed business men is also at a record low, starting at lop. That is why the small business sector trusts Labour to look after its interests.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen the business survey conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses in March 1999 which precisely countered what was said by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It showed that 33 per cent. of small businesses in Wales are more optimistic than they were last year and that 20 per cent. have increased their work force. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is in part due to the increased consultation process that is now available to small businesses as a result of the Government of Wales Act 1998?

Mr. Hain: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. What is more, in the past two years during which I have been the Minister responsible for industry, the Welsh Office has had more of an open door to small businesses than ever before. There has been a series of initiatives, including an 18 per cent. increase this year in spending on small business support, which will help 6,000 companies. In addition, we are establishing an entrepreneurship action plan and making Wales an enterprising country in which people want to expand and invest. The small business sector is a vital part of that.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Bearing in mind the fact that over 90 per cent. of employment in Wales is in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, what recent plans have there been to assist the small business sector to expand its work force, particularly to make it more economically viable and attractive to do so, and to bring in youngsters?

Mr. Hain: In addition to the measures that I have already described, we have revamped Business Connect Wales, giving it a new business-led management board, to ensure that it is able to supply the support and advice often needed by small business people. The sole trader initiative, by which a self-employed individual is able to take on his or her first worker, has been a great success


in Wales, particularly north Wales, and is being driven forward. A series of other measures is being put in place to give small businesses what the hon. Gentleman correctly says is their rightful place in the Welsh economy.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Has my hon. Friend seen the list of the fastest growing firms in Wales which was published by the Western Mail this morning in conjunction with KPMG? May I share my wonderment and pleasure at the fact that six of those happen to be in Monmouthshire? Does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing needed by small firms exporting in Wales is the anti-European posturing of the Conservative party?

Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I am sure that the wonderful success of those companies in Monmouth is due to the excellent representation from their Member of Parliament. Every small business in Wales has a great deal to fear from the Tory objective, expressed in the past few days, of wanting to leave Europe instead of wanting to lead Europe.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I see that the Minister is wearing his rose-tinted spectacles. Does he accept that in the first three months of this year the number of bankruptcies among Welsh businesses rose by 40 per cent. and is rising at three times that rate among smaller companies? Smaller companies are creating jobs, but the Government are putting them in a straitjacket as a result of costly extra domestic legislation and the fact that they will sign up to any directive from Brussels. Is it not the case that our Welsh businesses want to be in Europe, but do not want to be ruled and governed by Europe?

Mr. Hain: Welsh businesses want a Government who stand up for them, support them and represent them strongly in Europe instead of standing on the fringes pursuing extremist policies that would result in Britain leaving Europe, as it would do under a Conservative Government. In respect of small business problems, it really takes the biscuit to recall that the hon. Gentleman speaks for a party that presided over record bankruptcies among small businesses in Wales and right across Britain. In each of the last five years of Conservative Government there was an increase in the number of closures and VAT deregistrations among small businesses in Wales. It is a shabby record that we are reversing.

Oral Answers to Questions — Beef on the Bone

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What representations he has received regarding the ban on the sale of beef on the
bone. [85157]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): I have received many representations, both supporting and opposing the ban of the sale of beef on the bone. In Wales, following the transfer of functions, it will become a matter for the National Assembly.

Mr. Robathan: I understand that after 1 July the National Assembly may decide to lift the ban on beef on the bone in Wales. That will lead to the astonishing predicament whereby one will be able to eat beef on the bone in Monmouth, but not if one travels up the A40 to

Ross-on-Wye. What does the Secretary of State think about that ludicrous situation? What is his position as regards Cabinet collective responsibility? Does he take the Government's absurd line that we are not allowed to eat beef on the bone, or will he support the sensible decision made by the representatives of the Welsh people?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's question is based on the astonishing assumption that the Welsh Assembly will deal with the issue unreasonably, without examining the evidence. The Assembly Committees responsible for agriculture and health are spending time looking at the evidence in order to reach a sensible decision—the best decision in the interests of the people of Wales. I have every confidence in their ability to look objectively at the facts.
It is the essence of devolution that some decisions will be taken in Wales for Wales and others will be taken elsewhere. However, the hon. Gentleman is not right to assume that people will act irrationally. That is not the way in which the Welsh Assembly is behaving.

Dr. Liam Fox: That was hardly an answer. The House deserves an answer to the following question: does the Secretary of State believe that it would be right for an hon. Member who is also a Member of the Welsh Assembly to vote in this House to retain a ban on beef on the bone, but to vote elsewhere to lift it? When the Secretary of State for Scotland said that people who vote in different ways in two different areas will have to resolve that problem themselves, perhaps he had the Secretary of State for Wales in mind.

Mr. Michael: The devolution settlement is different in Scotland and Wales and we are answering on Welsh issues in our own way. I am happy to answer real questions, not the artificial nonsense questions that the hon. Gentleman dreams up. Of course, some responsibilities will in future fall to the Welsh Assembly. Others fall to the House and to right hon. and hon. Members, including those representing Welsh constituencies. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand the devolution settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — Anti-drugs Strategy

Mrs. Ann Winterton: When he last met the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator to discuss the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's anti-drugs strategy in Wales. [85158]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): My right hon. Friend and I met the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator on 4 February 1999 to discuss plans for tackling substance misuse in Wales. From 1 July, this will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

Mrs. Winterton: Following the recent publication of the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator's first annual report and national plan, and bearing it in mind that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has conceded that Britain's drug abuse problem may grow worse before Government initiatives can have any significant impact, what specific plans does the Minister have to combat the rising tide of heroin abuse and drug-related crime in Wales?

Mr. Jones: I welcome the hon. Lady's concern, and I know that she has expressed anxieties on this subject for


a number of years. In Wales, we have a strategy called "Forward Together" which seeks to implement key elements of the UK strategy in a way that is applicable to Wales. We have a social inclusion fund amounting to £48 million over the next three years, £4.5 million of which is earmarked to help with drug and alcohol action teams and with support for drug and alcohol problems, which are unfortunately as severe in Wales as they are throughout the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — Council of Ministers

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: What arrangements are proposed for the representation of Wales in the EU Council of Ministers in the draft concordat drawn up by the Foreign Office and the Welsh Office. [85159]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Such European matters will be covered in an overarching concordat between the UK Government and the devolved bodies.

Mr. Eric Forth: A what?

Mr. Michael: It would be as well for the right hon. Gentleman to wait until I have finished my answer before he gets too excited.
Assembly Secretaries will be able to form part of the UK delegation to the Council of Ministers, to speak to the agreed UK line where appropriate and to raise Welsh issues. There will be close co-operation between the Assembly Secretaries and Ministers in the UK Government.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that Secretaries of State from his Government who are members of UK delegations in the Council of Ministers will be able to speak up in the interests of Wales and will not have their opinions suppressed, as has happened in the case of the report by John Humphries on the impact of the European Union on Wales? It has been suppressed by the Kinnock Cabinet in Brussels because it highlights the need for the Government in London to provide matching funding to take advantage of objective 1 moneys for Wales.

Mr. Michael: I will answer gently in case the right hon. Gentleman gets overexcited and feels he has to rush from the Chamber again. Indeed, he is getting overexcited on this point. I have seen the reports, but I have no idea as to the decision-making process. The relationship between Assembly Secretaries and Ministers at Westminster will be one of partnership. The representatives of Wales will participate—as junior Ministers and I have done in the past-in agreeing the United Kingdom line to be fought for at European meetings, and will be part of the delegations. Where appropriate, they will be able to put the case for Wales. This is a question of partnership—which is what devolution is all about.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the concordat contain details of the regional assistance that is to come from Europe this year? Is not it strange that the Labour party claimed yesterday that it had got the best deal ever, but that it has refused to announce what that deal is until the election is over?

Mr. Michael: It depends on what the hon. Gentleman is asking about. His question is muddled. We have

received the best deal ever for Wales, because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—working with Welsh Labour MEPs—were successful in winning objective 1 status for large parts of Wales. It is an extremely good settlement. There are other issues in terms of structural funds that have yet to be finalised, and those will be discussed within the Government, and between the Government and our colleagues in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — Democratic Systems

Mr. Paul Flynn: What measures he intends to promote to improve democratic systems in Wales. [85160]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The establishment of the National Assembly for Wales has brought democracy closer to the people of Wales. Our modernisation agenda involves increasing local accountability; encouraging councils to give local people a greater say in how councils are run; reviewing electoral procedures to encourage greater participation in voting; and seeking to enable councils to experiment with the way in which local authorities are conducted. Our specific proposals for local government are set out in the White Paper, "Local Voices: Modernising Local Government in Wales", which was published in July 1998.

Mr. Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that commercial lobbying is the mother of corruption and the enemy of open democracy? What will he do to guarantee that the infestation of Cardiff by commercial lobbyists in the past few months will not succeed in gaining them any influence whatever on Welsh Office decisions or on the policies of the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Michael: I am not sure about the infestation to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have certainly seen a lot of organisations taking a great deal of interest in Cardiff because they view the arrival of the Assembly as something positive for business as well as for the whole of Wales. The greatest protection is the fact that, built into the design of the National Assembly for Wales, and supported by the House, are the three partnerships: with local government, with the voluntary sector and—relevant to my hon. Friend's question—with business. To have open contact with business at every level is the best way of ensuring that we have good governance and protection against any inappropriate approaches to Assembly members or to the Assembly as a whole.

Mr. Richard Livsey: In the interests of improving democracy in Wales, and given the scams that have occurred in local government in both north and south Wales, when will the Secretary of State introduce proportional representation for local government elections in Wales?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman has an inventive way of getting a traditional old Liberal song into this debate. I have no such plans at present.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: When does my right hon. Friend intend to light the bonfire


of the quangos? Was it not our position in devolution debates that we would abolish many of the quangos, which were the plague of the previous Administration?

Mr. Michael: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not noticed the steps that have already been taken, including the ending of Tai Cymru and the reduction of the number of NHS trusts. Those steps have made considerable progress in reducing the dependence on quangos that developed under the previous Government. Now that the Assembly is in place, many other decisions are being taken in an open and democratic way, and that will increase as the Committees of the Assembly take up their duties. The position of some of the remaining bodies will be reviewed. For instance, the Cardiff Bay development corporation will wind up in the coming year.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the Secretary of State improves the democratic system in Wales, will that lead to a reduction of junior Ministers in the House?

Mr. Michael: That is a matter for the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — Devolution Timetable

Sir Sydney Chapman: When he next plans to meet the Committee Secretaries of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the timetable for devolution of powers to the Assembly. [85161]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): I welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated arrival in the devolution debate. His question should clearly be treated as a sort of maiden speech.
Under the Transfer of Functions Order debated and agreed in the House on 24 February and in the other place on 3 March and made by Her Majesty in Council on 10 March 1999, the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales transfer to the Assembly on 1 July. By Committee Secretaries, I assume that the hon. Gentleman means the Assembly Secretaries, who are effectively the Ministers who make up the Assembly Cabinet. I meet them very frequently. There is no need to debate the date of the transfer of functions as the House has already decided it.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The Secretary of State is sadly but characteristically misinformed, as I have already taken part in the debates on devolution. Will he confirm that it is his intention to resign as Secretary of State? Surely it is incompatible to be both First Secretary and Secretary of State.
Taking education as an example of one of the devolved subjects, if the Assembly takes a decision to spend more money in a particular area of education, will that have to come out of another part of the Welsh Budget, or will the Secretary of State or his successor lobby the Cabinet to change its decision and give more money to Wales?

Mr. Michael: I said that the hon. Gentleman's first question was rather like a maiden speech. The second is equally ill informed. As I have said for many months, I will stand down as Secretary of State for Wales at the appropriate time, when I have assisted in the transition

between the responsibilities that I currently hold and the establishment of the right relationships between the Assembly and colleagues in the United Kingdom Cabinet.

Oral Answers to Questions — Beef and Dairy Farming

Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss beef and dairy farming. [85162]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The National Assembly Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Christine Gwyther, and I met representatives of the National Farmers Union on Monday 24 May, when we discussed a range of issues. They stayed in the room and probed us vigorously on a series of issues affecting farmers in Wales—which, of course, will be matters for the National Assembly in future.

Mr. Fabricant: Did those representatives probe the right hon. Gentleman about the fact that farm prices for milk have fallen by 25 per cent., and farm incomes in Wales by 41 per cent., since the Government came to power? Did they say how irritated they were with the Prime Minister's continual bragging at Prime Minister's Question Time about having singlehandedly lifted the beef ban, when not one kilogram of beef has been exported from Wales?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman conveniently reminds us that the Government whom he supported, who were in office until two years ago, signally failed to deal with the beef ban and to protect the interests of farmers in Wales, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Yes, indeed: the NFU representatives took the opportunity provided by the meeting to debate the issues that he raises, because farmers in Wales have had an extremely difficult time. I suppose that we should take the hon. Gentleman's question as a form of apology for his Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

[85185] Dr. Tony Wright: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Dr. Wright: I congratulate the Prime Minister—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh.") Wait for it. I congratulate the Prime Minister on having referred the issue of party funding to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Is he aware that there is still a party that gets about one third of its income from its treasurer, who is a tax exile in Florida and who moonlights as the Belize ambassador at the


United Nations? When a party has to go, baseball cap in hand, to a billionaire in Belize for its funding, should Lord Neill not be asked to re-examine the issue?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely for those reasons that we are committed to introducing legislation. It was this Government who ensured that we could scrutinise party funding properly—[Interruption.] If the Leader of the Opposition denies the facts that my hon. Friend mentioned, perhaps he will say so now, when he asks his question.

Mr. William Hague: As we know, the only group who can buy votes and influence in a party are the trade unions in the Labour party. The comments of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) are total rubbish. Does the Prime Minister think that the story of the euro so far—[Interruption.] We know that Labour Members do not like talking about the euro.
Does the Prime Minister think that the story of the euro so far— story of fudged borrowing rules, exchange rate instability and economic divergence, all wrapped up with chaotic political handling—has weakened or strengthened the case for joining the single currency?

The Prime Minister: I believe that our position is the correct position—to support a successful single currency, to say that in practice the economic conditions must be met, and to make preparations so that this country has the option to join. The most foolish thing for this country to do would be to adopt the position that the right hon. Gentleman set out this morning for the Conservative party, and rule out the single currency for ever. That would not be in the interests of British jobs, British industry or British investment.

Mr. Hague: The question was whether those events had weakened or strengthened the case for joining the euro. Almost everyone in the country except the Prime Minister and the Chancellor thinks that that case has been weakened. The Italian Treasury Minister says:
We have all agreed that the less we talk about the euro, the better it is".

He must have been in charge of the Labour party's election campaign. Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that the decision to allow the Italian Government to break its deficit rules—a decision to which the Chancellor was a party—has not weakened the case for joining the euro?

The Prime Minister: The case is as we set it out in February. If the right hon. Gentleman's position now is that we rule out joining the euro for ever, that is wrong. We have the correct position, which is that the test for joining is our national economic interest. That is because more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and more than 3 million jobs are dependent on Europe. The anti—Europeanism of the Conservative party is a betrayal of the British national interest.

Mr. Hague: My position is to keep the pound at the next election. The Prime Minister's position is to abolish the pound after the next election. He seems to think that recent events make no difference. Even the governor of the European central bank—one of the two people

qualified to talk about it—has said that recent events have not done the euro any good. Has the Prime Minister seen the accumulating evidence, contained in the recent International Monetary Fund report, that the UK economy is diverging from the continental economies, not converging with them? Does he agree that that weakens the case for joining the euro?

The Prime Minister: It is correct that, under this Government, Britain has the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years, and that the public finances have been sorted out. However, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The case with regard to the euro remains as we set it out in February.
However, the right hon. Gentleman has now said that he rules out joining the euro at the next election, but apparently not at the election after that—a fatuous position to be in. There are two serious positions on this matter. One is ours, which is dependent on the national economic interest, and the other is to rule it out as a matter of principle. The right hon. Gentleman's position is to rule out joining for the next Parliament, but to rule it in for the Parliament after that. That is an absurd position, and has to do with the division in the Conservative party, not the national interest. If he wants to, in these European elections the right hon. Gentleman can make the case for ruling out the euro. I shall carry on addressing the British national interest, because that is in the interests of this country.

Mr. Hague: We are asking the Prime Minister to address the issues. People are sick and tired of him claiming to love the pound at election time and then committing us to abolishing it afterwards. Does he acknowledge that, increasingly, many politicians in other countries have spoken of the euro as the foundation of closer political union? Chancellor Schroder, with whom he was campaigning yesterday, called it a "stepping stone" to a political union. Is the Prime Minister so dogmatically committed to abolishing the pound that he cannot see that that major constitutional risk weakens the case for joining the euro?

The Prime Minister: Our position is not dogmatic; it is clear, and based on whether the euro is good for British jobs, investment and industry. It is a pragmatic position. What I was pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman is the absurdity of his position, which is that he rules out joining as a matter of principle at the next election, but that he rules it in as a matter of principle at the election after that.
The right hon. Gentleman has decided to define the modern Conservative party by its anti—Europeanism. For example, he is now saying—he said it again today—that he would renegotiate the terms of British entry into the European Union. [Interruption.] We see that Conservative Members behind him are nodding their heads. It would require all 14 other member states to agree that. When the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, will he name one other Government who support that position?

Mr. Hague: Is not it the truth that, irrespective of all the evidence, the Prime Minister wants to con the country into thinking that joining the euro is inevitable? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That is enough.

Mr. Hague: That is why he has committed us to join it in principle. Is not it the actual truth that this country


has a choice, and that it can make a success of the pound if it wishes to do so, and be in Europe without being run by Europe? People who want to impress that on the Prime Minister should vote for the Conservative party tomorrow.

The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that there will be a referendum of the British people, and the idea that we can bounce them one way or the other is absurd. The position that we have set out is surely sensible. The test is the national economic interest.
I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the absurdity of his position, which rules out entry for the next election but not for the one after that. We have seen him sharing an election platform with Michael Portillo who, I am sure, is right behind him—knife in hand. Mr. Portillo's position is to rule out entry in principle and for good. For the European election campaign, the right hon. Gentleman has effectively adopted Michael Portillo's position on the pound. He wants to renegotiate British entry into the European Union and to cancel the changeover plan so that we cannot enter the euro even if we want to. During the past few days, he has also said that he wants to withdraw from the defence initiative that we have begun with our French colleagues. That is a recipe for leaving the United Kingdom with no strength, power or influence in Europe. No matter what short-term tactical gain he believes he will achieve, that is not in the strategic, long-term interests of Britain. Nor, I can honestly say, is it in the interests of the Conservative party.

Mr. David Lock: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what the attitude of the British Government would be if another country told the European Union that it would like to renegotiate the treaty of Rome, tear up the rules of the single market and turn the clock back 20 years? Does he agree that the British Government, like every other Government, would say that that was a preposterous stance that amounted to leaving the EU? Is the Opposition's policy of renegotiation really a fig leaf to cover up their intention to leave Europe entirely?

The Prime Minister: That is the logic of their position. The Leader of the Opposition cannot name a single Government who support his position, yet the Conservative party says that it would be right for Britain to remain in the European Union only if we were allowed to renegotiate our terms of entry. I can see Conservative Members nodding at that. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can name one Government who support his position, the logic of that position is that the Conservatives will have to leave the EU. Given that more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, that would be a mistake for Britain.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Judging by the exchanges that we have heard—[Interruption.] I shall take that as a welcome.
Judging by the exchanges that we have heard, it is clear that the vision of the leader of the Conservative party for Britain in Europe is nothing more than an exit sign in lights. Is not the choice before the British electorate tomorrow simple? We can have a Britain on the edge of Europe and preparing to get out of it, or a Britain prepared to play a constructive role in Europe, but determined to reform it. I suspect that the Prime Minister would like to be placed in the second category, so why is he opposed

to more openness in the Council of Ministers and why were his Members of the European Parliament opposed to holding individual Commissioners to account for their actions? Why does his party oppose allowing the MEPs more powers to hold the Commissioners to account?

The Prime Minister: On his points of detail, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the Labour MEPs. They were among those in the European Parliament who managed to hold the Commission to account. On his first point, the right hon. Gentleman is right. We want to be in Europe and we want to reform it. That is one reason why we launched the reform document yesterday in Britain with Chancellor Schröder. It is remarkable that the Conservatives criticised us even for sharing a platform even with the leader of Germany. It is an extraordinary reflection on how extreme they are that they do not believe we should even share a platform with people who are our allies in the European Union.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister says that he wants reform in Europe. May I give one example of where the record parts company with the rhetoric? Not many weeks ago, a proposition was put down in Brussels by, as it happens, the Liberal Democrats to ensure that MEPs were paid expenses only against receipts. Labour MEPs blocked that proposition. Why?

The Prime Minister: That is completely wrong. We have supported the Members' statute, and have said its introduction should be quickened. We also proposed the anti-fraud office that the EU is setting up. The right hon. Gentleman's attempt to say that Labour MEPs have a bad record on reform is simply untrue. The reason why we have now got a chance of getting those things done is that if people vote for Labour MEPs, they are at least voting for people with some influence in the Parliament.

Dr. Brian Iddon: In this national carers week, will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all those who care for people with Down's syndrome? This week they are running their health alert campaign, which has shown that there is some discrimination in parts of the national health service against people with Down's syndrome. Will he join me and others to combat all forms of discrimination against people with learning difficulties?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I support that and, of course, it was as a result of this Government and the policy that we put forward some time ago that an extra £140 million has been committed for carers. I support fully what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does the Prime Minister share the view of his Health Secretary that NHS staff are to blame for the recent rise in waiting lists because they took holidays at Easter?

The Prime Minister: He did not say that at all. What he did say, which is true, is that waiting lists are now 65,000 down from what we inherited at the last election, and I can tell the House today that waiting time figures are down as well.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Can my right hon. Friend clarify the Government's position on the state


funding of parties? Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), it cannot be right for any party in this House to be so dependent on a tax exile billionaire for its funds. While he is at it, can he get to the end of an important issue: has the Conservative party paid back the £18,000 blood money from Milosevic?

Madam Speaker: Order. That was totally out of order and a waste of time.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Prime Minister support the Bill overwhelmingly backed in this House yesterday that would ban the import of meat from countries with low animal welfare standards?

The Prime Minister: As I think we said when the Bill passed yesterday-at least I hope we did-we will consider it carefully. We cannot give a guarantee because of the implications there may be for trade, but we will certainly look sympathetically at it. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me about Europe, but then he agrees with me more than he agrees with those on his Front Bench on Europe.

Ms Hazel Blears: With the extension of NHS Direct and the introduction of walk-in health clinics, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government intend to provide high-quality health services where and when people want them, in contrast to the Conservative party, which still believes that the only way to do that is for a privileged few to pay to go private?

The Prime Minister: As a result of the additional funding that we are putting in, there will be some 7,000 extra doctors and 15,000 extra nurses in the health service. About 1,000 GP practices are to be modernised and every accident and emergency department that needs it will be updated and renovated. Also, as a result of the walk-in centres and NHS Direct, people will have the best modern health service that we can have. It will take some time, but the health service will return to its principles of care at the point of need for all, irrespective of ability to pay. That stands in contrast to the comments of the Conservative party's health spokesman and spokeswoman who want to make sure that people are forced to go private rather than use the health service.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the Prime Minister that when the Conservatives introduced the bus lanes on the M4 Heathrow spur, they were additional lanes that did not increase congestion? How are we to judge the success or failure of the bus lanes that his Government have introduced on the M4, which have caused enormous congestion and pollution? Are they just another Labour anti-car stunt to pander to the anti-car lobby?

The Prime Minister: No, they are not. They arise from a suggestion of the Highways Agency, and are an experiment that it is sensible to carry out. We shall consider the results of the experiment carefully, both in terms of congestion and of safety.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: During national carers week, it is appropriate that

we acknowledge the contribution made by millions of carers of all ages in providing personal care and support to many people with disabilities. My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall that, exactly a year ago today, he announced that the Government would introduce a national strategy for carers. The strategy was launched in February this year. It contained a pledge that social services would be allowed to provide services directly to carers as soon as possible. Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing such legislation as a priority?

The Prime Minister: I spoke earlier of the extra grant of £140 million over three years, which will enable local authorities to provide a wide range of services to give carers a break. As my hon. Friend will know, we intend to amend legislation to give local authorities powers to provide services directly to carers. In the context of that change, we will consider the case for extending direct payments to carers for the services.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave us the quite welcome news that the European Council had actually advocated lower business and labour costs. However, can he explain to the House why there is no mention-indeed no hint-of that policy in the manifesto for the European socialist party that he has adopted as Labour's manifesto for tomorrow's elections?

The Prime Minister: The policy set out clearly yesterday is in the document that I launched with Chancellor Schröder. In respect of what has happened in this country, we have cut corporation tax to its lowest level ever. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would welcome the fact that we now have the support of a leading country in EuropeGermany—in ensuring that we can lower business and labour costs. We cannot commit every country in Europe to that policy, but we believe that it is the right policy and we are building the necessary alliances in Europe to achieve it. That stands in stark contrast with his party's position—to build no alliances with anyone.

Dr. Desmond Turner: The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his efforts on the world stage in pursuit of world peace. Will he use his increasing world stature in the interest of reducing world poverty and, in particular, will he use it to help to persuade our more reluctant partners among the G8 countries, at the forthcoming Cologne summit, at least to support the proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we can make a substantive start on reducing the burden of international debt on the poorest countries in the world? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I assume that that cheer is one of congratulation, and I accept the congratulations of my hon. Friend. I thank him very much indeed. His question is important because this country is at the forefront of initiatives to reduce third-world debt. That is important. We have announced a series of measures that would allow a cut of at least $50 billion in the debt of the world's poorest countries by the end of the year 2000. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a $100 million further contribution to the trust fund set up to meet the costs falling to the World Bank


and other regional development banks. However much the Conservative party may decry those types of initiative to reduce third-world debt, large numbers of people in this country support measures to reduce third-world debt and understand—even if today's Conservative party does not—that our generosity does not stop at our shores.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Tomorrow, many people will vote in the European elections. Will the Prime Minister join me in saying that this should be the first and the last time that not a single voter is able to vote for a single candidate in an election? It is a disgrace that no elector can affect what happens to a mainstream party candidate.

The Prime Minister: I do not agree. We had this debate during the passage through the House of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999. The policy is the right one because the new system is far simpler for voters and far better—it is a more democratic system. It is also a system under which we are bound to do less well.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman: not only is it the right system, but it is the system used by most other countries in the European Union.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell my right hon. Friend of the anxiety felt at Shotton steelworks in my constituency and at British Steel plc about the potential impact of the energy tax which, by 2001, might be some £230 million for the industry? Will he monitor the impact of the tax on industries in Britain? My steelworkers were glad that, yesterday, they were able to meet my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and make their case—she said that she would consider the impact of the tax.

The Prime Minister: Any money raised by the climate change levy is given back to industry through cuts in national insurance costs. However, we understand that there are many energy-intensive industries that may have particular problems. For that reason, we have said that we will meet them and consult with them on the impact of the proposals, and we shall certainly do so.

Mr. Stephen Day: In view of the fact that another terrorist murder took place in Northern Ireland last week, and given that there has been no decommissioning of terrorist weapons, will the Prime Minister now call a halt to the release of terrorist prisoners? If his answer is no, will he explain to the House why he apparently treats terrorist murderers so leniently, but is so hard on British ex-soldiers?

The Prime Minister: First, anyone who has committed a crime after the time of the signing of the Good Friday agreement is not eligible for early release, so that response would not be appropriate. Those who are responsible for that appalling attack will not be eligible for early release.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman and many other Conservative Members have, in effect, been saying for a significant period of time that we should bring the Good Friday agreement to an end—[Interruption.] They can shout and bawl as much as they like, but that is effectively

what they have been asking for. I believe that that would be a mistake; it would be the wrong thing to do. We have now set a timetable to try to get over this last remaining difficulty.
I hope that the Conservative party will put the interests of people everywhere in the United Kingdom ahead of whatever views it might express that would undermine the agreement. I hope that it will support the Labour Government in the same way as we used to support the Conservative Government in getting the peace agreement through.

Radioactive Waste

Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has to develop a policy on the long-term storage of radioactive waste.

The Prime Minister: Existing radioactive waste is stored at licensed sites under strict regulatory controls and in accordance with the highest international standards. We want to ensure that the long-term management of waste continues to ensure public safety and the protection of the environment. We shall publish a consultation paper on that around the end of the year.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the latest research from Sussex university comparing the costs of reprocessing and of dry storage as methods of dealing with spent fuel, will he include the future of nuclear reprocessing in the terms of reference of the Green Paper?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has expressed that point of view and his concerns on several occasions. I assure him that the full range of safety, environmental and economic issues associated with reprocessing were considered in exhaustive detail during the process of consultation before THORP was commissioned. But if we were to question the continued operation of THORP, that would not be right. THORP is an operation with orders valued at some £12 billion, it provides 6,000 skilled jobs and it indirectly supports many more. We have to deal with the issue of radioactive waste, but I do not support the case of those who would like us to abandon THORP.

Engagements

Mr. Simon Burns: Why, based on the Government's figures, between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1999 in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS trust area, has the number of people waiting 13 weeks or more for out-patient treatment risen from 555 to 2,422; the number of people waiting 12 months or more for hospital treatment risen from 104 to 1,093; and the total hospital waiting list figure increased by 1,500 people?

The Prime Minister: I do not know the details of the individual hospital. I am happy to accept the figures the hon. Gentleman gives, but I will check them if I may.
There is no doubt about the figures for the whole country: the waiting lists have fallen after years and years of rising. Waiting times in the whole country have fallen,


and more out-patients are now being treated than two years ago. The health authority deficits that we inherited were £500 million for the whole country. They came down to £100 million last year and, I can tell the House, now stand at £12 million. Yes, it will take us time to turn around a health service that under the Government the

hon. Gentleman supported was undermined and ruined every day. It will take us time, but with the extra investment that we are putting in—more nurses, more doctors and more capital spending—everywhere, including mid-Essex, will feel the benefit at the next general election.

Points of Order

Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following Welsh questions today, I wish to ask for your guidance before the next Scottish questions. As you know, in Scotland, there is now a formal coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. Is it appropriate for the Liberals to be treated in this House as members of the Government in terms of Scottish questions or as members of the Opposition? In particular, what is the position of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who, although he sits on the Opposition Benches, is a Minister of the Crown?

Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have already given the position some thought. Members of the Liberal Democrat party are not represented in Her Majesty's Government in this House, so as far as I am concerned, it remains an Opposition party. It is as clear as that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister might reasonably have anticipated that at least one question in the past half hour would have referred to what has happened in the past 24 hours in Macedonia. Through no fault of the Prime Minister's, he was not asked such a question. In those circumstances, has there been any request from the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister to make a report to the House of Commons? Surely we deserve to know what is happening, whatever one's view of the continuous bombing.

Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have had no indication that the Government are seeking to make a statement at this time.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that in January last year, the Prime Minister set up a second judicial inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday, involving members of the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment. I am distressed that the Prime Minister has slunk away from Question Time immediately. I wonder whether you have heard from him, in view of the fact that he has responsibility for security matters, that he intends to come to the House to explain why he refuses to accord the right of anonymity to those former members of the regiment who have been called to give evidence and whose lives are now at risk. This very afternoon, in advance of a hearing in the High Court tomorrow, the solicitors acting on behalf of the inquiry released to the relatives of those who died and were wounded in that incident the statements given by those soldiers containing their names, ranks and numbers.

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. As I explained earlier, I have not been informed by any Minister—including the Prime Minister—that he or she is seeking to make a statement today about any issue.

Concessionary Television Licences for Pensioners

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the concessionary television licence entitlement to all pensioners living in households consisting only of pensioners; and for connected purposes.
It is more than 12 years since my private Member's Bill that sought to extend television licence concessions to all pensioner-only households was defeated by 21 votes. That occurred on 16 January 1987. I was pleased that the majority of Labour Members of Parliament came to the House on a Friday to support that measure, which was defeated as a result of the then Tory Government's imposing a three-line Whip on a private Member's Bill. Several Cabinet Ministers were shown on television being chauffeured to the House of Commons to vote down my measure.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Disgraceful.

Mr. Winnick: I could not agree more. The issue has certainly not gone away since then. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport receives more correspondence on this subject than on any other topic. I see the Minister nodding his head.
Several weeks ago, it was reported that the committee examining the future of BBC funding and the concessionary scheme had decided to recommend that all existing television licence concessions should go. Within hours of those press reports, the Government—I believe at the highest level—made it clear that any such recommendation would be rejected; and rightly so. I hope that Mr. Gavyn Davies and his committee—who are to report next month—will make a very different recommendation for pensioners.
I want to see the existing concession extended to all pension-only households. I believe that that is fair, and it is something for which I and many of my hon. Friends have campaigned for many years—even before I introduced my private Member's Bill in 1987. I accept that such a concession could probably be introduced only in stages because of the cost involved. While I would like to see the concession extended to all pensioner-only households—that is the purpose of my 10-minute rule Bill—I would welcome any compromise and progress towards its introduction on a wider scale. For example, the television licence fee could be halved for pensioners, it could be a third of its present cost or the concession could be granted to pensioners over 70 years of age. Those are some of the ways of achieving our objective.
Of course, we need good pensions. I sometimes hear the argument—not from my colleagues, but from various organisations—that a good basic pension, rather than concessions, is required. Which Labour Member is not in favour of a good basic pension? We have always called for that. However, that aim should not be used as an argument against concessions.
All pensioners in my own area, in London and in many other parts of the country receive a bus pass. Is that not right? Does it not assist pensioners a great deal? They certainly appreciate it. They would certainly have difficulty meeting the costs involved if they could not



travel for free on the buses at most times of the day. All Labour Members are again very pleased about the assistance that the Government have provided to pensioners with winter fuel bills. I remember arguing constantly from the Opposition Benches in previous Parliaments that such a payment should be introduced, and this Government provided that assistance as soon as they came to office. From next year, all pensioners will receive £100 towards their winter fuel bills. That demonstrates our concern for people of pensionable age.
It has also been argued that pensioner incomes have increased over the years. I accept that since I introduced my private Member's Bill 12 years ago, there has been a modest improvement, which is welcome. That is largely due to various occupational schemes taking effect as people have retired in the past few years. There should, however, be no misunderstanding: the latest figures demonstrate that 63 per cent. of pensioners are in the bottom half of income distribution. The figures for 1997-98 reveal that 42 per cent. of single pensioners were in the lowest fifth of household incomes. Clearly, many of our fellow citizens of pensionable age are experiencing poverty or near poverty.
I am often asked why I put so much emphasis on television. As they grow older, many pensioners find that their television set is extremely important, particularly in the winter months and if they live on their own. Television is an important link with the outside world, not simply a form of entertainment. Without television, there would undoubtedly be far more isolation and loneliness for the people to whom I have referred.
I could quote endlessly the letters that I have received from people around the country. Those who know of my concern write to me about my proposal to introduce a Bill on this matter. I shall refer to only one letter. A pensioner in Worcester wrote to me last month saying that she is a widow who receives, in all, £76.25 a week, and that for people such as herself, the television is the main source of news and entertainment and, in her case, the greatest companion. She concluded her letter by saying that a £5 fee would be a great help to her. How many more pensioners throughout the country take the same view?
There are anomalies in the current system. I receive letters from people who say that their pensioner next-door neighbour pays £5 while they must pay the full amount. We know the explanation for that. The Tory Government made it far more difficult for local authorities to make applications for concessionary television licences. There was a successful court case and the Conservative

Government were frightened that the concessionary door was being opened too wide, so they tightened the restrictions in May 1988. Those who lived in certain accommodation prior to May 1988 therefore receive the concession, and rightly so, but those who moved in afterwards pay the full amount. One can imagine the resentment that they feel. That does not, I suppose, make for good relations between neighbours. That is one of the most blatant anomalies.
Other countries have more generous television licence schemes for pensioners. In the Irish Republic, licences are free for those who are entitled to the state pension. France and one or two other countries have schemes that are more generous than ours.
What about the cost? Of course, I accept that a substantial cost would be involved. That could be borne by the Exchequer or by an increase in the licence fee. After all, everyone hopes to reach pensionable age. If the measure were introduced in stages, the cost would be lower. If, in the first instance, the concession were given only to the over-70s or if the licence fee were reduced, as I have suggested, by a half or a third, there would be less cost to the BBC or the Exchequer. If the £5 concessionary fee was increased, but only—I stress the word "only"—if the scheme that I am advocating was introduced, that would also reduce the overall cost.
I do not for one moment accept that we cannot afford to introduce a more generous scheme. We are a rich, advanced country, and pensioners are absolutely right to ask for this reform. They have been campaigning for it far longer than I have been. We should make a move in the right direction, so I decided to introduce this ten-minute Bill. I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration and that, over time, we shall make the progress on this issue that so many of us want.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Peter Bradley, Mr. Hilton Dawson, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Martin Salter, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Valerie Davey, Mrs. Ann Cryer and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR PENSIONERS

Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to extend the concessionary television licence entitlement to all pensioners living in households consisting only of pensioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 115].

House of Lords Reform

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Although it is, of course, right and proper that we debate the White Paper, I doubt whether hon. Members will find much new in what I propose to say. The legislation that the White Paper accompanies is very much stage 1 of an enduring process. Although the White Paper provides the context for the legislation that it describes, it also sets the framework for a royal commission and for further legislation. That first stage of reform is still being debated in the House of Lords—the House of Lords Bill will return to this House—while the second stage is now with the royal commission.
The legislation reforms the House of Lords by abolishing the right to sit and vote there on the basis of heredity alone, without regard for the personal qualities or qualifications of the inheritor. As the White Paper identifies, the effect of that decision—should it be carried through into law—will be to create a transitional House of about half the present size, in which every Member will sit as a result of their own achievement and reputation.
That is certainly preferable to the present position, but it still in our view has serious flaws. Although it diminishes the permanent in-built Conservative majority, there would still be, for example, a wholly disproportionate representation of the main parties—even in a transitional House that is created solely by the removal of hereditary peers. That is because of the exploitation of the Prime Minister's sole power of patronage during the 1980s and 1990s, which led to the creation of infinitely more Conservative life peers than those of any other party, and exacerbated the in-built Conservative majority among hereditary peers.
That position is certainly unacceptable to my party, although I have noted that, in the many debates on this matter in the House of Lords, the proposal to remove that in-built majority has been described pejoratively as acting "to our own"—the Labour party' s—"advantage". On the contrary, we strongly believe that it is to the country's advantage that no political party has an overall majority in the House of Lords. That is the principle that we are enshrining in the arrangements for the transitional House, seeking only parity with the Conservative party.
Such a principle has, on occasion, been espoused by the Conservative party itself, but it has been most notable that, whether in this House or in the House of Lords, today's Conservatives have been most reluctant to accept that national interest should override the political interests of the Conservative party.
Rather than following the precedent created by his Conservative predecessors, the present Prime Minister is determined to diminish the unfettered power of patronage that he now enjoys—although nobody would think so to listen to some of the rubbish that has been uttered from the Opposition Benches during many of our debates. The Prime Minister is, for the first time ever, to forgo his power to object to the names of those nominated by other party leaders.
We are to set up an appointments commission—using machinery devised by the previous Government, to ensure a proper process of appointment—with a suitable independent element, as well as representation from the political parties. That appointments commission will take over the job of scrutinising proposals for adding Members to the House of Lords. The whole process will, therefore, be much more transparent and independent than ever in the past, and will represent the first ever diminution of the sole power of patronage enjoyed by a Prime Minister in Britain's history.
Against the background of the creation of the transitional House, the Government have also proposed the setting up of the royal commission—itself chaired not by a Labour, but by a Conservative peer, and with a balanced and independent-minded membership. We have given the royal commission a tight timetable, and we acknowledge that. However, those who criticise us for the timetable being too tight are, in many cases, the very same people who said that unless the royal commission worked to a tight timetable, it would prove that the Government had no intention of going beyond stage 1 and the transitional House. They really cannot have the argument both ways. The tight timetable for the royal commission is itself evidence of the Government's good faith in seeking proper and fundamental reform of the House of Lords. It is also evidence of our practicality in trying to ensure that, on this occasion, after more than a century of debate, it is actually achieved.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that Conservative Members were calling for a royal commission for more than a year before it was established?

Mrs. Beckett: I acknowledge that Conservative Members have called for a royal commission, although I also acknowledge that they nevertheless resist any attempt at change. As I shall say later in my speech, one of the Government's objectives is to ensure that the royal commission will be able to take account of other constitutional change. The commission would not have been able to do that if it had been established earlier.
The Government have established some broad principles against which the royal commission should begin its work. It is asked to consider, first, the role of a second Chamber; then, the powers required to fulfil that role; and, finally, the composition of the body that should be established to exercise those powers and perform that role. That seems to us to be the only sensible and logical way in which to hold a proper debate on the new second Chamber. We have never had such a debate in Britain before.
All previous discussions have tended to begin with the matter of composition, partly because the composition of the current House is so self-evidently unjustifiable. They have also been dominated by composition because—perhaps unsurprisingly—the principle preoccupation of many Members of the current House of Lords has been their own role in a new second Chamber, and whether and to what degree they might continue to exercise legislative power. Therefore, the stranglehold that they have enjoyed over any previous attempt at reform has ensured that the debate has almost always begun with composition, and been driven very heavily by what they were prepared to


accept in a successor body. That has created an artificial context for previous debates, so that what a second Chamber ought to be has never been properly considered.
The House of Lords Bill cuts that Gordian knot. It allows us to begin as we should, by considering what Britain needs and not what hereditary peers are prepared to accept. However, just as the House of Lords Bill enables us to separate stage 2, and what should come in the future, from stage 1 and the first steps of the reform process, it is extremely important to encourage the new debate without allowing it to be bogged down in comparisons, valid or otherwise, with the current House of Lords.

Dr. Liam Fox: Perhaps for the sake of clarity, will the right hon. Lady tell us whether, in general, she believes that a reformed upper House should have more, the same or fewer powers than the current one?

Mrs. Beckett: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman that later in my speech. If he will forgive me, I shall not do so now, as I want to make a specific point that should underpin the debate.
I very much hope that we—by which I mean not only those participating in the debate, but everyone who engages with the issue—shall free ourselves from looking at the House of Lords as it is and saying what we should make different, whether in its powers or its composition, and instead begin from first principles, by considering not what people have been criticising or even campaigning for, but what type of new second Chamber Britain actually needs.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am extremely encouraged to hear the Leader of the House speak in those principled terms about the role of the House of Lords. Does she think that, conformable with those terms, the commission should not listen to siren voices suggesting that a reformed upper House should depend on actions taken in this House to reform itself, but that—although there are connections between the two Houses' roles and functions—the commission's job is one that can properly be carried very far by simply examining the functions of the second Chamber?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is right. The commission would find it difficult to get engaged in that area of argument and doing so would make it very difficult for it to report within the time required.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: While it is right that the commission should address the functions of the second Chamber, in determining what those functions are, should it not consider the extent to which this House properly performs its democratic role of holding the Executive to account?

Mrs. Beckett: No. That is not the business of the commission. It was set up to consider the role of the second Chamber. If there is concern about the operation of this House, it is for this House, not a royal commission to tell us what to do.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I want to get on, but I shall give way briefly.

Mr. Letwin: I do not want to detain or distract the right hon. Lady, but does she not recognise that there is an

intrinsic relationship between the two issues? The role of the second Chamber must depend to an extent on the effectiveness of the lower Chamber.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not accept that point and I shall explain why. There is clearly a relationship between this Chamber and the second Chamber. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the effectiveness of this Chamber, I suspect that, like his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), he is seeking to pursue the ridiculous Conservative argument that the present Government cannot be scrutinised in the way that previous Governments were, and that that shows some in-built failing in the House. The effectiveness with which we conduct our business is a matter for Members of Parliament, not for the royal commission.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am sorry to ask my right hon. Friend so many questions at this stage in her speech. Does she agree that the role of a second Chamber is not to remedy the deficiencies of this Chamber? There have been many changes over the past 20 years and more. Should we not make sure that the system is brought into line with what is required rather than using the other Chamber to cope with our deficiencies?

Mrs. Beckett: I share my right hon. Friend's view that if there are deficiencies in this House, it is for this House to address and deal with them. It is strange to argue that we have to set up another House to do so. There is a different role for a second Chamber.
That intervention ties in neatly with the point that I was about to make—and may yet make. The starting point in the debate for some people is to ask whether we need a second Chamber. They are the so-called unicameralists, who can be found on both sides of the House, although not in substantial numbers, I think. No doubt that will emerge over time. Those of us who accept that there is a need and a role for a second Chamber must explain why.
It has always been argued that the value of a second Chamber is to provide not merely an alternative group to scrutinise and comment on Government activity, particularly the legislative programme, but a group with different experiences and perspectives. Those who have argued for some of the virtues of the existing House of Lords have almost always said that they lie in some of the differences between that Chamber and this one. In particular, they have argued strongly for keeping some people from outside the mainstream world of politics that leads to the House of Commons and for there to be at least some people in that House who do not take a party Whip. As the Government have pointed out in the terms of reference of the royal commission, the creation of the new devolved bodies, and the growing role and increasing powers of the European Parliament have created a different context in which the role of a new second Chamber should be considered.
We do not seek to dictate answers in the White Paper. We seek to address the issues that should inform the shaping of those answers and we try to set out some of the principles that any proposals should meet. The first is that this House must continue to be the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. That is a principle which I hope that every Member of this House would wholeheartedly endorse. I am unashamedly a House of Commons woman


through and through, and it has been most noticeable that one of the most potent weapons of those who have opposed change down the years has been any threat, real or potential, to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. That suggests that Members of this House through the decades have shared the Government's view on this important point.
We have not nor would we ever propose to change the power of the second Chamber to veto any extension of the life of a Parliament. The legitimacy of government comes from the endorsement of the people and, of course, it must be renewed at regular intervals.
My brief summary of the Government's approach to the issues of role, powers and composition is that there is a role for a second body and a second process of scrutiny, and that the needs of that process should direct the powers that it requires. It is only then that one comes to consider what should be the nature of the body to exercise those powers, how such a body might be composed and how its members might be chosen.
I do not propose to say much about the powers that would be needed by a second Chamber retaining the important roles of revision and scrutiny, but, picking up the question asked by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), one important point is that there is enormous confusion, particularly outside the House, in much of what has already been said about the powers that a new second Chamber should have.
Almost every time I hear somebody comment on powers, I find myself wondering whether they are referring to the powers that the House of Lords has now or to the powers that it currently exercises. It is somewhat strange to hear those who argue against any change, because the present House of Lords does a brilliant job, going on to argue—as some do—that that job cannot be done adequately without fresh powers that the House of Lords does not exercise at present. They cannot have it both ways. Either the present House of Lords is not doing much of a job—which I do not myself argue—or what is the justification for saying that more powers will be required in future to do the job it does now.
Let me make it clear, as does the White Paper, that the House of Lords has almost all the powers enjoyed by the House of Commons. If it gets more, it will probably have more power than the House of Commons. Is that really what some Conservatives are asking for? If so, they are in danger of saying that a new second Chamber should supersede this one and that it should be the pre-eminent Chamber. That is a dangerous and damaging argument.
I suspect that that is not what most of them think, but I also suspect that on this issue, as on many others, sheer opportunism and the inability to look further than the ends of their noses is leading them gleefully to advocate ideas on the basis of what they hope will embarrass the Government in the short term, without their apparently giving any real thought to the impact of what they are proposing on the country in the long term. That is playing with fire and if it persists with those tactics, the Conservative party will go down in history as the party that sought to undermine the authority of the elected House of Commons.
Without going into the detail of what should be the composition of a new second Chamber, there are some principles we could identify which might attract a degree of agreement and common ground.

Mr. John MacGregor: On the point about powers, is the right hon. Lady saying that she would not wish any new powers to be given to the House of Lords?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not want to pre-judge any view that the Government might wish to express at some time, but given that the House of Lords has almost all the powers enjoyed by the House of Commons—although it does not exercise them all—if the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to agree to more powers for that House, he is in danger of putting those who advocate this case in a position of arguing for more powers for the second Chamber than for the House of Commons. I do not support such a proposition and I would be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I ask a question that I have been asked by one of my constituents—a serious constituent—and will she give me some advice on how to answer it? My constituent asked whether it is proper that the Speaker of the Holyrood Parliament should also be a Member of the House of Lords, and whether that creates some problems of interface between the House of Lords and the Holyrood Parliament? I do not expect my right hon. Friend to answer this somewhat arcane question off the top of her head, but perhaps she might write to me at her convenience.

Mrs. Beckett: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me the courtesy of writing to him about it. He is right. I fear that it is not a matter on which I feel emboldened to venture off the cuff. It is, indeed, a serious constitutional point, not only for the House of Lords or indeed for this Parliament, and it is certainly interesting. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is not sure how to answer it; I am not either, but I shall take advice.
Without getting into the detail of what should be the composition of a new second Chamber, we can identify some principles that might attract a degree of agreement and common ground. The body itself should be more legitimate than it is now; it should be stable; it should be a suitable body to revise and scrutinise; it should be distinctive and embody real expertise. It should represent a range of economic and social interests and have independence—both in the sense that its members should feel free to express their opinions honestly and in the sense that no political party should command a majority.
Hon. Members will be aware that, although the Government have not given evidence to the royal commission, the Labour party has. I have not been part of that consultation process, but I have talked with some of those who have. The process seems to have been most interesting, both in its conduct and in its outcome.
I am told by those who attended the Labour party's regional consultation that there was a thorough, well-informed and practical debate. Much to the surprise of some who took part in that consultation, there was apparently little appetite for the prospect of and potential


for that confrontation which seems to be the chief hope and expectation, perhaps inevitably, of many media commentators.
Ordinary members of our party were interested in a process where voices other than those of the House of Commons could be heard; experience other than ours could be aired and points of view different from the points of view naturally held and expressed in this Chamber could be taken into account. I am told that there was little if any appetite for duplicating this Chamber and none for a built-in process of confrontation. Mature debate, and mature and considered decision taking seem to be what members of the Labour party who gave evidence to our consultation seek, and what they urge on the royal commission.
It is a reminder to us, irrespective of party, of what our citizens expect of Parliament—mature debate, and mature and considered decision taking. I believe that the White Paper and the process it sets in train is an important step along the road of creating a better forum for decision and debate in the future—a forum that will not merely replace, but greatly improve what we have now.

Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful that the Leader of the House has finally got round to having a debate on the White Paper and grateful, too, for the tone of her speech, which was much more conciliatory than the one that she used on the launch of the White Paper. It is healthy that the debate is being conducted more in today's atmosphere rather than in that of the unfortunate first opening salvo.
It is rather strange that the right hon. Lady should not only fail to say anything new today, but effectively apologise for the Government having no views on taking forward one of the flagship proposals in their manifesto. We are finally getting to talk about stage 2 of the reform, but all that we are getting is a clear admission that the Government have embarked upon it without knowing what they actually want. We always suggested that that was the case—that the Government had no idea of what they wanted as part of the process that they set out in their manifesto —and today we have heard the clearest possible admission that that is the case.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had said exactly what we wanted to do at the second stage, would not the hon. Gentleman have accused us of setting up a royal commission on a totally false basis? The Government have quite rightly appointed a royal commission to look at the issue and the Labour party, as a political party separate from the Government, has submitted views.

Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman, who has attended some of our previous debates, will know that the Opposition's position is that a royal commission could have been set up two years ago, when the Government came to power. We could now have been at the conclusion of that royal commission, and discussing the move towards single-stage reform by consensus. That opportunity was lost by the Government. The Opposition pushed for a royal commission, which the Government did not want, at the outset of the reform process. The Government were pushed into it by the Opposition's demands.

Mrs. Beckett: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away with the notion that we might have had

consensus about single-stage reform, may I remind him that the Conservative party went into the last election saying that it wanted to keep the hereditary principle?

Dr. Fox: The right hon. Lady will know that we have said consistently that we would look at reform that we thought was in the national interest and that improved the way in which the UK was governed. However, we have always opposed stage 1 reform without any idea of what stage 2 would entail. Clearly, the Government have no idea what they are embarking upon, but that goes for all of their constitutional changes. They have not thought through any of their policies, and we will suffer as a result. However, that is par for the course for the Government, who start projects with no idea of how they are to finish.
The royal commission could have been finished by now, but there is delay. The initial deadline was December this year, but perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us whether that will now be as late as March or April next year. There are rumours that the royal commission will be allowed to sit longer if it Nishes. How much longer will it be given? How long will the Joint Committee take?
All hon. Members will have worked out that the timetable will take us perilously close to the next general election, almost certainly making sure that no legislation could be proposed to implement stage 2 before that election. Therefore, we will go to the general election not knowing the outcome of that election in terms of the composition of the House of Commons, and not knowing the nature of the Parliament in terms of its structure. That is entirely unacceptable. There is a suggestion that the Government want to kick this matter into the long grass to prevent divisions in their own party on the subject, in the run-up to the next election.
I want to take the Leader of the House to task on some of the points that she raised because—as with the Prime Minister at Question Time today—rather than dealing with the real policies of the Opposition, she simply invented Opposition policies to try to knock them down.
We must look at the role of Parliament as a whole. I fundamentally disagree with the Leader of the House when she says that reform of the House of Lords can be looked at in isolation. What happens in one part of Parliament necessarily impacts on the functioning of the other. Therefore, we need to look at Parliament as a complete entity. We cannot deal with one Chamber in isolation.
The assumption from the remit of the royal commission is that the House of Commons will not be reformed, and that therefore the commission has to make changes to the House of Lords to increase its powers of scrutiny or to get it to work better. Given that the royal commission is not able to look at the workings of the House of Commons, that is the only assumption that I can make. We have said that we must look at a series of relationships, and not only that of the two Chambers in this Parliament. Given the other changes to our constitutional framework, other relationships must be looked at.
The first of those is the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. The Leader of the House said that the Opposition were pretending that, in some way, this Government were not being scrutinised as well as


previous Governments. Our argument has been that Parliament as a whole has been unable to scrutinise any Executive in recent years, and that is a fundamental flaw. Governments in office—including Conservative Governments—necessarily think that, having got the power, they do not want it scrutinised too much.
If we are to have a meaningful debate on reform, the House of Commons must get some of its self-respect back and decide that the Executive need to be brought to account better for the sake of the good governance of the United Kingdom. We will have to make sure that the House of Lords has suitable powers of scrutiny to bring the Executive to account.
Having spent two years in the Government Whips Office, I am all too aware of the power that the Whips exert, partly because there is no alternative career structure to the patronage handed out by the Executive. We must include that in our consideration of the way in which Parliament as a whole operates.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I understand that the Opposition are veering towards having an elected element in the second Chamber. If we give the second Chamber an advise and consent role, we must ensure that the elected politicians in it should not themselves be the beneficiaries of any ministerial or other patronage. It is absolutely vital that we do not create a new cadre of ambitious elected career politicians.

Dr. Fox: I will deal later with the Conservative proposals under the Mackay commission, but my hon. Friend's general point is extremely important, and I hope that he will expand on it later in the debate.
Parliament must consider other relationships. One of the factors that makes the Leader of the House wrong to say that we can undertake reform of one Chamber in isolation is the role of the judiciary. Given the Human Rights Act 1998 and other changes in the political nature of the judiciary, it is inevitable that there will be a new relationship between the judiciary and both Houses of Parliament. We cannot divorce one from the other.

Mrs. Beckett: How does the hon. Gentleman square his expressed desire for stage 2 to be implemented before the next general election with his further list of things that he thinks that the royal commission should scrutinise before stage 2 reform takes place?

Dr. Fox: That has to be part of a wider process. I would welcome a broader remit to consider how the whole of Parliament works and how all the changes are to be implemented. It was not the Conservative party but the Government who set the artificial timetable for the changes. We would all have been better served if they had started the process two years earlier and taken account of the broader arguments. It is unfortunate, in terms of the wider picture, if the Government really think that we can reform one Chamber in isolation.
We must also consider the relationships between Parliament and other bodies that have arisen as a result of Acts of Parliament: not least, the devolved bodies in Wales and Scotland. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the relationship between the

Presiding Officer's roles in both the Scottish Parliament and the House of Lords. That is a valid point that must be considered, as must Parliament's relationship with Europe.
The Leader of the House mentioned the legislation that comes from the European Union. I wonder whether there are many hon. Members who believe that we really fulfil our primary duty to scrutinise the way in which we legislate in the name of the people whom we are chosen to represent. With the vast amount of secondary legislation that goes through Parliament, do we believe that we are performing our democratic role of ensuring that it is all properly scrutinised and that we are not passing legislation affecting our fellow citizens that we are unhappy about?
It would be an ideal role for the second Chamber to play a greater part in the scrutiny of secondary legislation. I hope that that will be considered as a positive suggestion. It is not true that, to increase the powers of scrutiny of the second Chamber, one has necessarily to reduce the powers of the House of Commons. It is entirely possible to increase the powers of scrutiny of the House of Lords at the expense of the Executive without in any way diminishing the House of Commons.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point, but would it not be better if the House were to take unto itself the power to amend statutory instruments? One of the most objectionable features of secondary legislation is that it is incapable of change unless it is laid before the House in draft form, and then it depends on the will of the Government to change the draft.

Dr. Fox: That is an extremely important point, and we shall all have to think seriously about it in the context of the wider reforms. The shadow Leader of the House is considering it as part of the Conservative party's review of those wider subjects, and we are right to do that. My right hon. and learned Friend may want to make an internal submission to contribute to the thinking and policy development of the Conservative party, which is showing all the signs of being light years ahead of any development on the Government side.
The idea that the only way to increase the power of the House of Lords is at the expense of the House of Commons is false. It is an argument used by the Executive to protect their power from increased scrutiny.
As I have said, we must seriously consider whether we give Members of the House of Commons an alternative career structure that does not depend on keeping the Whips happy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said in a previous debate, the present system of getting rid of the hereditaries, but keeping the powers of the Whips, simply means, "Out with the ermine and in with the straitjackets."
We do not want the power of the Executive to increase as a result of what the Government are doing. We must still believe that the results of their actions, if not their intentions—I have great doubts about those—will not weaken Parliament as a whole in relation to the Executive.
I hope that the Leader of the House will accept the fact that we have never questioned the legitimacy of the Government's carrying out their manifesto commitment to abolish the voting rights of the hereditary peers. We have always said that we welcome reform if it results in


the better governance of this country. However, we have questioned the wisdom of what the Government are doing, their timetable and their motives, because we believe that they are motivated not by an interest in improving the way in which Parliament works but in further sidelining Parliament to the benefit of Ministers. That will result in a move towards de facto single-chamber government.
There is a suspicion among the Opposition that many people within the Government would welcome that. The way in which the House of Commons has been treated by members of the Executive can only strengthen that suspicion. To set up a House of Lords chosen entirely by nomination by the Prime Minister or by agents appointed by him would undermine the independence of the upper House.
There seems to be a disturbing pattern of authoritarianism in the Labour proposals. That includes the other constitutional changes, as voters will find out tomorrow, when they realise that they cannot choose which candidate to vote for. That is all about centralising power; it increases the power of politicians while diminishing the power of the voters.
It is therefore difficult for us to have faith that the Government's intention in the reform of Parliament is not to weaken Parliament to the benefit of the Executive. There is little support out there for creating an appointed House. It is hard to find anyone who supports the Government in their option of an appointed Chamber, even as an interim measure.
Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, said:
I think that it would be very important to avoid the perception of the biggest quango in our nation's history".
That is exactly what will be created if the policies in Labour's submission are carried forward, and many of us believe that that is exactly what the Prime Minister wants. There is a great risk of creating a compliant halfway house of yes men, which the Prime Minister, in particular, would like to last as long as possible.
According to reports, the Prime Minister does not bother to take particularly seriously either his duties in the Palace of Westminster, or his duties to attend Cabinet. As we all know, he is increasing the central power of the political machinery at the expense of the parties in the country and of individual voters.
Anthony Barnett, the former director of Charter 88, said:
Surely Labour should first decide how it will replace the Lords with a democratic Chamber? Otherwise it will create an Upper House that is so pliant and illegitimate that it will expose the government to the charge of dictatorship".
Charter 88 said that, not the Conservatives.

Mr. Bill Rammell: If the hon. Gentleman opposes an appointed second Chamber, does that mean that the Conservative party will support a wholly elected second Chamber? If not, what proportion of the new Chamber's composition will be derived through elections?

Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman makes an utterly illogical leap from one position to the other. He can look at the Conservative party's submission to the royal commission, but this problem was created by the Government. He should not look to the Opposition for ways out of the hole

dug by the Government. That is what Governments are for and, when the Minister replies to the debate this evening, we shall expect some answers.

Mr. Rammell: rose—

Dr. Fox: I shall come to the Mackay commission and the proposals put forward by the Conservative party in a moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a little.
I want to mention one other opinion on the appointed Chamber. Vernon Bogdanor, professor of politics at Oxford university, has said:
It is by no mean obvious why the ability to defer the wishes of one's party leader constitutes a better title to a place in a legislative chamber than the claims of hereditary. Labour's proposals for a purely nominated chamber would involve a quite unacceptable increase in prime ministerial patronage.
We are supposed to believe that, because the Prime Minister will give up his ability to nominate Cross Benchers, that will be all right. However, that is more than offset by the exclusion of any independent element. I shall return to that in moment.
We have always advocated that there must be an independent element in any upper Chamber for it to be effective.

Mrs. Beckett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not pretending that the Government are taking out the independent element in the upper House. Is he arguing that the only people who can be independent are the hereditary peers? If so, most of the rest of the House of Lords would find that very insulting.

Dr. Fox: One reason for the Government's keenness to press ahead with the changes is that they do not like any independent criticism. They will find that many peers—hereditary and otherwise—will have the courage to do what Labour Back Benchers did not have the courage to do over the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. I am sure that the electorate will thank them for that.
By their every change to our constitutional arrangements, the Government are trying to diminish the power of those who are able to influence the political process but who do not belong to a political party. That is one of the most disturbing trends of the Government's proposals.

Mrs. Beckett: indicated dissent.

Dr. Fox: The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but I shall give her an example. The people who are able to choose who will sit in the European Parliament are not the voters in an election but the party bosses in their party headquarters. That increases the power of the parties, and decreases the power of any independent element, including that of the electorate.

Mrs. Beckett: I look forward to the next general election, when—the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying—every constituency will be offered a choice of Conservative candidates. If that is not what the hon. Gentleman is saying, he is making a stupid point-not for the first time. He pretends that, in some way, the electorate have lost a power, which they enjoyed in


the past, to choose individual candidates from political parties. In his constituency, the hon. Gentleman stands as the sole representative of the Conservative party, as I stand as the sole representative of the Labour party in mine. There is nothing unusual about that.
With regard to the possibility of making a different change, all hon. Members are worried about the level of interest in, and concern about, the European elections, because we all recognise that the European Parliament has important powers. Given the present size of ballot papers, does the hon. Gentleman agree that people would be put off if they were also asked to pick out individual candidates? I am sure that people could do so, but whether they could be bothered is quite another matter.

Dr. Fox: I thought that the right hon. Lady was going to keep up her conciliatory tone for an entire debate, and not descend to her usual level. I am reassured to find that she has done so in the end.
What will happen in tomorrow's European elections is symptomatic of what the Government are doing, in that the power of the parties over the electorate will be increased, as I shall describe. If one of those elected under a list system drops out, it is up to the political parties to decide who should replace him or her. The electorate have no say: that is a clear example of how the parties are trying to centralise their authority.
We had the utter nonsense of the recent debate in the Scottish Parliament, in which list members were told that their job was not to represent constituents—for which they get less money—but to represent the political parties. What sort of democratic obscenity is it when Parliament is supposed to represent the politicians rather than the people? Democracy is being stood on its head by the Government's arguments. Labour Members will have a real difficulty when the Bill comes back from the House of Lords. Let me remind the House of what Labour's manifesto said:
The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute.
We have all heard Ministers mocking hereditary peers and saying how unacceptable it is that they sit in the House of Lords. The Home Secretary said that the first fundamental objection to the position of the hereditary peers was that they were hereditary. He said that we should
imagine lying open-mouthed in the dentist's chair as the dentists drilled into the gum instead of the teeth. That would raise questions about his skills. Imagine if, when asked to produce his certificate of competence, he brought out one awarded in 1860 to his great great uncle William, but said not to worry because the skills had been transmitted through the genes."—[Official Report, 30 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 571.]
I remember hearing howls of laughter from Labour Back Benchers, the same Back Benchers who trekked through the Lobby to vote down the Weatherill amendment when it was offered in this House. We know that, once the proposals have been accepted in the House of Lords, the same Back Benchers will, on the instruction of their Whips, vote for them, in direct contravention of their manifesto.

Mr. Rammell: As we are in the business of trading embarrassments, will it not be a greater embarrassment

for the Conservatives and their leader to vote for a proposal for which the Leader of the Opposition sacked the Conservative leader of the Lords?

Dr. Fox: We all make mistakes when we take interventions. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the situation at that time had nothing to do with the content of the proposals but arose over agreement to a deal that no one but the shadow Cabinet had the authority to accept.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has precisely described why this House is failing to discharge its role of holding the Executive to account. It is true of all Governments, not only the present one, that they use their Whips to ensure that Back Benchers do whatever the Government want. In this case, that means either voting for or against the Weatherill amendment. That is what is so destructive of truly accountable Government.

Dr. Fox: What is most damaging about this episode is that the Government have not even pretended to act from a point of principle. They said that they would do whatever was necessary. If that meant countermanding their manifesto, they would tolerate that. If it meant blatantly forcing Members to go back on what they had previously voted for, the Government would force them to do so. Perhaps the Leader of the House will confirm that the Government intend to march their troops through the Lobby to vote for the Weatherill proposals. That seems the only logical position given that the Government backed those proposals in the House of Lords. Will the Leader of the House tell us that?

Mrs. Beckett: No.

Dr. Fox: Perhaps it is too embarrassing for her to admit what the Government are going to do to their Back Benchers.

Mrs. Beckett: I certainly shall not comment and nor shall my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but the other place has not yet finished with the Bill.

Dr. Fox: What courage, what leadership, what great principle.

Mrs. Beckett: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman in words of one syllable what I meant. Amendments have been tabled to the Weatherill amendment, and none of us knows whether they will be carried.

Dr. Fox: We have a fair idea of the Government's position. I do not know whether it is appropriate—perhaps it is against the rules of the House—to offer the Leader of the House a wager. I shall wager £10 for her favourite charity that she ultimately forces her Back Benchers in precisely the opposite direction to that which they took when the Weatherill proposals were previously debated in this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps it would be better if that wager were kept metaphorical.

Dr. Fox: I am not a gambling man, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never even been to a bookie.
Let me return to the point made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). The Conservative position has been clear throughout the debate. We saw no need for reform of the House of Lords. There was nothing about it in our manifesto. However, we have accepted that the Government are implementing the proposals in their manifesto and that the status quo is no longer an option. As the Leader of the House has pointed out, I have also said that the Conservative party will not reintroduce hereditary peers after we win the next general election. We must therefore consider ways of introducing an independent element into the upper House.
I commend the Mackay report to Labour Members who have not read it. It is an elegant and extraordinarily interesting discourse that takes the debate on House of Lords reform to levels never achieved by the Government. It proposes two models. It is not a question of an entirely elected or an entirely appointed House. One of the Mackay options is a partly elected House. Members could be elected in many different ways. Another option is to move to an almost fully elected House with a proportion of Members appointed by the Executive so that Ministers could work in the upper House. It is an interesting document and we will consult on it in the Conservative party to find how our party thinks reform should be taken forward.
I hope that the hon. Member for Harlow will give us credit for having moved the debate much further than have the Government. The contributions in print of several of my hon. Friends have added much to the debate on the House of Lords on both sides of the argument. I am genuinely sorry that the Government were not more willing to outline some of the options that the Labour party, if not the Government, might consider for stage 2 reform.
The Government's contribution has been extraordinarily sterile. They have proposed a change with no idea of how to carry it through. They have muddled along. They do not know how they want our constitutional framework to look and have little idea of what the Executive's relationship with people or Parliament should be beyond having more power centralised and more power given to political parties for the Prime Minister to exercise greater control through those organs.
I hope that this debate marks the beginning of the House of Commons re-establishing a little of its self-respect. In the wider process of reform, let us remember that our primary duty is the scrutiny and production of legislation and the provision of a framework for what we are meant to do: to govern wisely and well those whom we are elected to represent.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I agree with one aspect of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said. On the proper use of Back Benchers, there is a need for the alternative career structure that he mentioned. The Select Committee that I have the privilege to chair, the Liaison Committee, is considering that. It is examining what changes should be suggested halfway through a Parliament for the future role of Select Committees and considering how they can carry out their investigative role, which cannot easily be reproduced in any other forum. They can question the people responsible for important decisions and come back at them again and

again. They can seek memorandums and have the power to call for whatever persons, papers or records we require. Something is happening on that and I await the results in due course.

Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman has much more experience than most hon. Members. Is he saying that he believes that the House does not have sufficient scrutiny powers to control an Executive who seem increasingly capable of legislating by Executive action through secondary legislation?

Mr. Sheldon: My view is that the Select Committees are doing very well. They were set up two years ago and this is a suitable time to consider whether there can or should be changes to make them even more effective. That is what is being done through our consultations.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House opened this debate in a way that wholly commended itself to me and many others when she said that she is a House of Commons woman through and through. That is what the Leader of the House should be and I welcome that assertion. Of course, I knew it already, but it is nice to hear it once again. My right hon. Friend also mentioned that the powers of the House of Lords are great—far too great in the opinion of many Labour Members. The only limit on the activities of Members of the House of Lords is the way in which they exercise those powers. My right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that point.
My view of the proposed legislation, as it comes back from the House of Lords, is that it would produce a transitional House; these are the first steps. My expectation is that that temporary scheme is likely to become permanent. I am sorry to disagree with some of my colleagues, but, as time goes on, the enthusiasm for constitutional reform is not likely to increase. In my experience—I have seen a fair amount of such matters in my time—that enthusiasm is likely to terminate fairly early on.
Lord Cranborne showed himself to be a most powerful and inventive person. Given the way in which he carried out his work, he is obviously the lost leader of the Tories in this generation. He knew that, as Sir John Harington put it in the 16th century:
Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
That is the point. The noble Lord's work will almost surely prosper. We may reach agreement on losing the hereditaries, save for the 90 or 92, whatever the number is, but further moves to abolish them are likely to die through the difficulties of constitution making, where there are as many solutions as there are Members of Parliament. The likelihood is that after the noble Lord's work, which he carried out to the annoyance—even the anger—of Members on the Opposition Front Bench, he could see that there was a cause worth fighting for. If he could not save all the hereditaries, he was going to save a substantial number of them.
There will be slippage. As was mentioned earlier, the second stage is likely to continue well beyond December. The matter is unlikely to be resolved in this Parliament—possibly not even in the next one. As colleagues have pointed out, we should not try to remedy the defects of the House of Commons by making changes in the House of Lords. The House of Lords should remedy not the


deficiencies that we see at present, but those that might be regarded as more permanent. If there are defects in this House, they need to be put right before we grant the House of Lords more powers to remedy those problems.

Mr. Hogg: What if the defects in this House are not essentially procedural, but stem from the fact that we do not have a separation of powers and that the Executive are Members of this place? Because the Executive, through the Whips Office, can control the majority party, this House is incapable of exercising proper control of the Executive. That is not procedure; it stems from an inherent characteristic of the constitutional settlement that is in place.

Mr. Sheldon: That has been the position for the past 250 years. It was a wonderful solution, because, as long as Members of Parliament had feelings of independence, they could form part of the Executive as well as holding the Executive to account. When we considered the problems in the United States, we used to congratulate ourselves on how well we had organised matters. What has happened during the past 30 years is that Members of Parliament have become much more full time and are looking to a career structure. It is that career structure that has tended to corrupt the system. That is the problem.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The right hon. Gentleman has made half the point that I was about to make. Is it not true that Members of Parliament were much more independent when they were of independent means?

Mr. Sheldon: Now, we have large numbers of Members of Parliament who have little in the way of outside interests and outside concerns. As a result, they look to the ordinary routes of promotion and envisage themselves forming part of the Government. In the past, many Members of substance and standing would come into the Chamber to listen to the debate; now, most Members come to the Chamber to speak in a debate. There is nothing wrong in that, but we should recognise that there was formerly an element that produced the sort of House of Commons that it was our privilege to inherit, but which we have, to a certain extent, distorted. That is the real problem.
We have been at this stage before in respect of House of Lords reform. I strongly opposed the proposals in 1968–69. At that time, there was an agreement between the two Front-Bench teams, but it was my good fortune and privilege to spot, right from the start, that there was a way to divide them in such a way as to ensure that they could never get the guillotine. By using one device or another, the opponents of the proposals ensured that that happened. The Government Back Benchers railed against Ministers and the Opposition Back Benchers railed against their Front Benchers, with the result that the legislation fell.
I could see that the legislation could not be revived, because a poll produced at the time showed that there was little support for the proposals. The House sat 14 days and nights-at that time, we had the Dick Crossman reforms, so we sat morning, afternoon, evening and night—but after those 14 days, we had reached only clause 6 of a 20-clause Bill, so the Bill was dropped.
The deficiencies in that legislation were far greater than the deficiencies in the current Bill. At least in the current Bill, we can see the first stage and what will happen during that period, whereas the 1968—69 legislation simply gave huge powers of patronage to two Front-Bench teams operating together. If it had been passed, not only would it have distorted the House of Lords, but, more important, it would have distorted the House of Commons by creating an aldermanic bench.
I have had some experience of an aldermanic bench. People who have been elected as councillors wait for a certain number of their colleagues to die off so that they can acquire a position in which they will never have to face another election. It is a tempting prospect: permanent positions that carry power, but no responsibility—lovely. I could foresee the result of the 1968 proposals: some Members of Parliament would have been anxious to obtain one of those aldermanic posts, so there would have been patronage in this place, because Front Benchers would have been able to offer an attractive combination of power with security and pay. We must concern ourselves with both powers and composition, even at the first stage.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman has thoroughly described the shortcomings of the 1968 proposals. Does he take issue with the Labour party submission which states:
There is a great deal of wisdom in these earlier proposals for House of Lords reform which would repay careful examination today"?

Mr. Sheldon: Given that I spent a great deal of my political life fighting such proposals, I am not likely to change my mind 30 years on. Those proposals were flawed. At the time they were debated, the House could not get the guillotine—it could not even get 100 Members to move the closure; it got only 99, and that was the end of that.
The whole point is that Back Benchers have been underappreciated. Back Benchers are not always wrong, even on the big issues. In my time, we have had devaluation, which should have occurred far sooner; we have had the east of Suez policy, when the Government said that this country's frontiers were on the Himalayas, which was a load of nonsense and I fought against it; we have had the poll tax, against which we should have fought harder. On those and many other issues, Back Benchers knew better than the Government of the day, but the House of Commons failed to turn that general feeling into decision making. It was not the House of Commons or the system that was weak; it was the individuals who failed to put right what was wrong.
What needs to be done? We must consider the scrutiny of legislation by the House of Commons, which is the backbone of its work. We perform two types of examination of legislation—one is examination to see whether it is efficient, economic and effective. That is the Public Accounts Committee work of ensuring that everything that is done is done in the best possible way. The other role concerns aspects of policy, and the role of Government Back Benchers is even more important when the Government have a large majority. Francis Pym, who lost his position for his pains, was right to point out the dangers of large majorities. I welcome the Labour party being in power, but we must be careful that we understand


the difficulties of a large majority and find a role for Members of Parliament so that they can use their abilities to the full.
What is the solution? We must use the House of Commons more effectively, as both a debating and a decision-making body. Some in the Government have always believed that, in the interests of party unity, different views should not be openly expressed, but should be conveyed quietly to the relevant Ministers for their reconsideration. With many Ministers that is an effective way to achieve change, as we have seen in the past day or so. What if it does not work? Should the alternative views not be put? Should Members of Parliament have to bite their lip, swallow their pride, grumble in private and await the next means of persuasion? That is not the way for a sovereign House of Commons to proceed. This is a national forum for debate and open discussion, and for argument that brings out issues openly for the people to see and decide. Anyone who believes in open government and open dissent must be a part of that.
Are Governments always right? Of course they are not. The question is whether we should exchange the pressure of Members of Parliament for pressure from the unelected peers in the House of Lords. Of course not. I have always believed in the need to maximise one's powers of persuasion. An opponent of a Government can find his or her views readily dismissed, but Government Back Benchers can have an enormous influence if they make use of their voice sensibly, moderately and sustainedly. The task of a Government Back Bencher is not to be considered outside the pale but to have it believed—including by the Whips—that one is redeemable and interested in looking for good solutions.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What should the loyal Government Back Bencher do if they find themselves totally opposed to the Government's proposals, say, for example, on whether the upper House should be directly elected?

Mr. Sheldon: I can only answer from my own experience. I was against the Government on devaluation and on the east of Suez policy. At the time of devaluation, I was the chairman of the economic and finance group. I spoke in the House in favour of devaluation, and nine other members of the economic and finance group of the parliamentary Labour party spoke in my support on devaluation, but there was nobody in the Press Gallery and it was never reported. It was all in Hansard, but not in the papers. The House of Commons must return to being the centre of debate and argument to convince the people what is right and what should be done.
Government Back Benchers should put the arguments sensibly and clearly. If they get the debate going, they may persuade their colleagues and the Government of the need for a change. Nothing is fixed irredeemably. However, one should make one's point with courtesy and persistence.
In the 1969 debates on House of Lords reform, I was concerned the proposals would make the position of Members of the House of Lords more attractive. It would have given them powers as well as salaries. I considered the revising powers of the House of Lords and I was impressed by the arguments of Professor Griffiths who showed that nearly all the substantive amendments in the Lords were the result of Government actions.
I accept that the position has changed in the past 30 years. Government legislation is now more hurried and requires more amendments. Nevertheless, the fault for defective legislation lies with the House of Commons. Legislation is defective not because it has not been examined properly in the House of Lords but because the 659 Members in this place have not highlighted the flaws. That is a problem of application and of principle.
The only legislation that requires amendment from an outside body is the quinquennial Act. We clearly cannot change that Act ourselves: we cannot legislate to continue as Members of Parliament without calling a general election. I am also concerned about the domination of this Chamber by the Executive. Reference has been made to that problem, which has existed for 30 or 40 years—although it was not such a powerful obstacle when I was first elected to this place. Today, almost all Members of Parliament are full-time Members and they want a career structure. That leads to dominance first by the Executive and then by central party organisations. That is a serious matter.
I was not expected to be chosen to contest my seat of Ashton-under-Lyne: it was purely accidental. I only went along for the ride. I never expected to be a Member of Parliament—it was just one of those strange things that happens. I am not sure that that sort of thing will occur again—although there are many people in a similar position. We should have Members of Parliament from different backgrounds. A central party organisation produces clones too readily, and we do not want that in this place. Members of Parliament should have diverse views and characteristics.
Faced with those problems, people look to the second Chamber to provide solutions. However, the second Chamber can also be influenced by the Executive. The Executive have the power and may find themselves forced to exert in the other place the control that they wield in the House of Commons.

Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the powers of the Executive in this and in another place. Does he believe that the Executive should be represented in the other Chamber if it is to carry out its legislative scrutiny role properly? Why should the Executive be represented in another place?

Mr. Sheldon: We look forward to seeing the royal commission's report. I do not see how those serving on a royal commission can agree about an issue such as this. If I were to put the people I know on a royal commission panel, I would assemble as many views as there were commission members. It will be interesting to see how the royal commission will come to some agreement and whether its members will be prepared to compromise their views.
The major question is how to ensure that hon. Members have the reasonable level of independence necessary to secure good legislation and an active debate that represents the views in the country and focuses the nation on the issues that concern it most. In this connection, the only alternative to the dogfight between two sides of the House—which is necessary, but not sufficient—is the role of Government Back Benchers.
There will be no satisfactory solution so long as the House of Commons does not fulfil its traditional role, which has existed at least since the Reform Act of 1832.


If it fulfils that role, the House of Lords will be less important and a new system may be devised more readily. The message is that the House of Commons must fulfil its function and then look to the House of Lords to fill in the far fewer gaps in our constitution.

Mr. John MacGregor: I shall begin by making two comments on points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). They are points that I have made in the past, but they are worth repeating in any debate on the House of Lords.
First, I agree with all the criticism of the Government for proceeding with phase 1 without knowing what phase 2 will be. They have put the cart before the horse. It is clear that the Government gave no thought beforehand to the long-term consequences of their proposals. The speech by the Leader of the House made that particularly clear, because she dodged all the issues of what phase 2 might consist of, and resorted to leaving that question to the royal commission and then to the Joint Committee and the House. That is a fundamental criticism of the Government.
Secondly, I agree also with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I suspect that we shall be stuck with phase 1 for a long time, partly because of the run-up to the next election and the processes that must be gone through, and partly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, because of the difficulties of reaching any agreement, not least in the royal commission, and in the House, about what a long-term phase 2 should be. I believe that the House of Lords as it will be constituted under the House of Lords Bill will be in place for a very long time, which I find deeply unsatisfactory.
I was not sure how the right hon. Gentleman would conclude his speech, because he spent most of his time talking about the House of Commons, rather than the House of Lords. I suspected that he would say, as he did, that, if the Commons reformed itself correctly in a number of the ways that he outlined, it would not matter too much what the House of Lords was like because it would not have many functions. I do not share his optimism—if there is optimism, which I doubt—that the Commons will be able to address some of the points that he made. It is therefore important to consider the composition and powers of the second Chamber.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing would provide a greater incentive for reform of the House of Commons than the reformed House of Lords doing its job correctly?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree, and I shall return to that point later.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the increasing dangers of the power of the Executive over the legislature and the centralisation of powers. If we leave in place a weakened House of Lords, which I suspect we shall have, and an unreformed House of Commons, which we shall probably have also, the power of the Executive will continue to increase. That is why we

need to consider a stronger House of Lords and, perhaps, a reformed House of Commons. However, a reformed Commons will not, on its own, be sufficient.

Mr. Tyrie: Does my right hon. Friend think that the likelihood of Commons reform would be greatly enhanced if the Lords were given moral authority and powers? That would stimulate this place into reforming itself.

Mr. MacGregor: It might, and I just agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on that very point. It is much more likely that the Commons will reform itself if we have a House of Lords that is different from that envisaged in the Bill going through Parliament at present.
Having made two points that have frequently been made and with which I strongly agree, I turn now to the future and the royal commission and its report. Lord Wakeham's royal commission began in an excellent manner. I have read the consultation paper several times, and it raises most of the big issues, only a few of which I shall have time to refer to today. I am encouraged by the fact that it has not assumed certain points, particularly those relating to powers, but is raising all the fundamental issues relating to powers as well as composition. I shall comment on the criteria, the powers and the composition.
On the criteria, I absolutely share the position of the Leader of the House and agree with her about the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. I am an out-and-out House of Commons man, and the only difference on that point between me and the right hon. Lady is one of sex. I shall comment on one criterion that is included in the consultation paper and one that is not. The first, which I want particularly to single out, is the importance of the second Chamber complementing, rather than duplicating, this Chamber.

Mrs. Beckett: indicated assent.

Mr. MacGregor: That criterion leads to a number of conclusions, and although the Leader of the House nodded on that point, I thought that her remarks about powers demonstrated that she has a closed mind about the second Chamber complementing the Commons. If she takes that point seriously, it will lead her to consider more powers for the House of Lords.
On page 6 of the White Paper, the Government say that
the second chamber must have a distinctive role",
and on page 7 they refer to a "fundamental transformation" of the constitutional processes, including the way in which the House of Lords is reformed. The complementary nature is a key criterion, and will underline everything that I shall say about powers and composition.
A criterion that is not listed, but which is very important, is that the second Chamber must attract high-calibre people who have a wide range of experience and expertise. I agree with the Leader of the House on this; she mentioned the issue, but did not follow it through. If we are honest, perhaps too much of the House of Lords is in the nature of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described in a recent article in the Evening Standard as:
A pleasant club and a debating chamber made up of people who are reluctant to retire from public life but don't want to go through the process of election any more.


That is something of a caricature, although there is an element of truth in it. It does not lead me to the same conclusion as that drawn by my right hon. and learned Friend, which was that the second Chamber should be wholly elected—I shall come to that—but it is an important point in considering what we want the House of Lords to do.
Attracting high-calibre people who have a wide range of experience and expertise is fundamental. We need to do so if we are to have a stronger Chamber than now—and one that is respected. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, it is becoming more and more difficult for this House to attract people in the middle of, or slightly later on in, their careers, who have considerable experience and expertise from a range of walks of life. This House—I regret this—is therefore composed more and more of people who are full-time politicians, from the time they leave their educational experiences to their retirement from this Chamber. In other words, we are increasingly politician-dominated.
People with outside careers, who in the past have entered the House in their late 30s and contributed a great deal, must now choose between that outside career and a much lower salary and—frankly—poorer pensions. That is partly because we make it more difficult for people to have outside interests, but mainly because if people lose their seats in their late 40s or early 50s, they find it extremely difficult, given the nature of the world of work today, to pick up the threads, have anything like an attractive career in the run-up to their retirement and secure a reasonable pension.
I speak with some feeling on the matter because, as chairman of the House of Commons trustees pension fund, I see acute cases among ex-colleagues who have lost their seats in their late 40s and early 50s. People outside the House are aware of that, and, as a result, do not want to enter it. The House of Lords could assist in bringing in such outside experience, thus complementing and supplementing this place.
We will not fulfil either key criteria unless we recognise the need to tackle the question of powers. If the reform is to be proper, thorough and long term—that ought to be the Government's aim—the second Chamber must make a contribution to the political life of the nation that is noticed and respected. The media must take notice of it, and the establishment, the Government and the civil service must take it into account. It must also affect decisions⁁that means changing as well as influencing Government policy.
I accept that one of the weaknesses of the strong hereditary composition of the House of Lords was that, in practice, it constrained that body in its exercise of such functions. Therefore, even when it had such powers, it did not exercise them very fully. If I am honest, speaking as a former Minister with 15 years' experience in government, I also know that, quite often, the belief that the House of Lords has a powerful influence over policy and the practice are two different things. Therefore, it is important to strengthen the House of Lords in that regard. If the House of Lords is to act as a better second-Chamber check on the Executive than it does now, it must have strengthened powers. I hope that I have shown that I believe that it is crucial to tackle the question of powers first, and composition second.
I was critical of the White Paper because it gave much more attention to composition than to powers. In fact, at some points, it talks of weakening the powers of a second

Chamber. Indeed, I was a little concerned that the Leader of the House was going down that route today when she said that she did not believe that the House of Lords should have more powers than it has at present. I am very glad that the royal commission is not approaching its task in that way.
If I were at all critical of the excellent report from Lord Mackay and his colleagues—it was instituted by the Conservative party, and is an excellent contribution to the debate; it has certainly moved the arguments on considerably—I would say only that it tended to take the view that the powers of the House of Lords should be left as they are and should evolve organically, rather than being tackled now. I believe that there will not be a third chance to consider the powers of the other place. Indeed, today we have already argued that there is a danger that there will not be a second opportunity to do so. It is therefore important to consider the matter of powers now.
What should the powers be? Moreover, how will the powers be used, and will they be used?

Mr. Maclennan: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with those matters, will he perhaps lend support to his argument by instancing examples, drawn from his long 15-year experience of government, of when the Government might have been assisted by the House of Lords exercising powers, and when he believes that, ultimately, amendments for the better would consequently have been made? Will he give some examples? An admission that Governments have got it wrong is very rare in this Chamber.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall list four issues related to powers additional to those already held by the House of Lords, and, in doing so, I should answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. All the issues arise from my own feelings and experience in government.
Secondary legislation is the first issue. I am delighted that, in its submission to the royal commission, the Conservative party has highlighted the importance of strengthening both Houses—although, in this debate, we are talking only about the House of Lords—in their handling of secondary legislation. I am delighted also that, in one of its questions, the royal commission asked about
providing for the Second Chamber's opposition to any subordinate legislation to result in delay and reconsideration (by the Commons), rather than rejection.
I think that the way in which Parliament as a whole deals with secondary legislation is now a disgrace. The situation has become very much worse because of the habit of all Governments, but very much of the current one, of addressing so many key issues in secondary legislation because they do not have the time or do not wish to think through the consequences in primary legislation. As the practice has become so much more intensively practised, it has become much more important to answer the question of how this Chamber and the other Chamber should handle secondary legislation.

Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prevalence of so-called Henry VIII clauses, in which secondary legislation is permitted to amend or revoke primary legislation, has almost got to the stage of turning the tables by making secondary primary, and primary secondary?

Mr. MacGregor: That is not always the case, of course, but very often it is. It must be a subject of great


concern for all of us, as it has greatly strengthened the Executive's powers and made almost non-existent the legislature's powers of scrutinising.
As we all know, this House is able either to reject in to or to accept in toto secondary legislation—statutory instruments—but cannot amend it. In Committee, when one is under pressure on a particular aspect of a Bill referring a matter to secondary legislation, the big concession that one makes—I have been guilty of it—is to agree that it is important, and therefore to agree that it should be dealt with by affirmative rather than by negative resolution. Big deal. When a Government have the majority that the current Government do, affirmative resolution does not amount to a row of beans. Therefore, there is no opportunity for either this House or the other House, which has a convention on secondary legislation, properly to scrutinise secondary legislation. There is no opportunity for this House to examine and amend in detail those crucial pieces of secondary legislation.

Mr. Grieve: I ask this as someone serving on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most extraordinary that, even when scrutiny—which is limited to identifying whether legislation has been properly drafted—reveals that legislation is defective and deficient, it is still open to the Government to decide, as they very frequently do, to continue with the statutory instrument in that form, with the mere assurance that, at some later date, it will be corrected?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree. The practice underlines just how few powers of scrutiny the House now has over secondary legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that much worse than the example he gave is when there are real criticisms of one policy aspect of the secondary legislation, but hon. Members are asked to accept the whole thing or nothing at all. As I said, with the current Government's majority, it is well known that that entails accepting the whole legislation.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not particularly want to make a partisan point, and agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—perhaps more than he has recognised. However, the notion that the practice has been introduced by the Government and is a consequence of our majority—[Interruption.] It is not a consequence of our majority. The practice has been growing over very many years, and I think that we all recognise that it has defects. Although I understand the astonishment of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to hear the Government saying, "Yes, this is defective, but we will come back to it at some other time", I assure him that, to my knowledge, the practice has been going on for at least 15 years.

Mr. MacGregor: I thought that I had already said that all Governments have done it. However, I also said that the practice is worse now, primarily because there is increasingly a tendency to put legislation into secondary form, but also because of the Government's large majority.

Mr. Hogg: I must ask my right hon. Friend whether there is not a further dimension to the matter. Secondary

legislation is the vehicle for expressing in statutory language decisions applicable to the United Kingdom and emanating from the European Union, either in directives or in regulations. In respect to a whole body of that, there is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am sure that he knows that he should be addressing the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In that respect, no mechanism is available to us, either in this place or in the other place, to address the merits of that legislation.

Mr. MacGregor: That was going to be my second point. I should first finish dealing with secondary domestic legislation.

Mr. Mark Fisher: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for not giving way again for a while. There are things that I want to say on composition. I do not want to speak for too long, and there have already been interventions in my speech.
I just want to underline the fact—I am glad that all the interventions, including that of the Leader of the House, have supported it—that we have to address the issue of how secondary legislation should be dealt with.
The House of Lords may have more time than we do to consider secondary legislation, and if the other place attracts people with outside experience and expertise, it may have a greater ability to consider secondary legislation. I therefore believe that the House of Lords has a particularly important role in dealing with secondary legislation. It should be given powers to amend it, and certainly to delay it, to give Governments time to think again.
The second issue relating to powers that I should like to raise—European legislation—was just mentioned briefly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). To be very brief, I shall simply say that we have, of course, developed mechanisms for scrutinising European legislation. This House's mechanisms for scrutinising such legislation are fairly extensive, and are probably more extensive than those of other democratic institutions in the European Union. Nevertheless, I think that there are matters on which we could go further and in which the House of Lords could have a specific role to play.
The role of the House of Lords should include consideration of issues that will be decided in the Council of Ministers and in European legislation, but well before those decisions are taken. I stress the importance of consideration well before the decisions are taken. In my experience—as a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and as a former Secretary of State for Transport—the House of Commons far too often debates issues that are almost already settled in a negotiating framework in Brussels. Anyone who has experience of how the Brussels system works will know that to be true.
In one sense, therefore, there are limitations to what the House of Lords could do on European legislation before final decisions on that legislation are taken, not only for


the reason that I have given—which could be dealt with by considering the issues very early—but because every Minister has to engage in negotiation with other Ministers and cannot himself or herself entirely achieve the wishes of this Chamber or the other Chamber.
The House of Lords could also play a much bigger part in the implementation of European legislation. As we all know, it is a common cry that the United Kingdom tends to implement legislation much more extremely and thoroughly than other member states do. Clearly, there is a role not only for the second Chamber but for this Chamber in ensuring that we do not burden ourselves with consequential legislation that goes way beyond what is needed. The second Chamber should also have a role in subsequently examining how European legislation has worked. The other place should have powers in performing that important role.
My third point is that more use should be made of the revising power of the second Chamber. Two years' breathing space on legislation may well be desirable. I do not often agree with Earl Russell, but I agree with what he wrote recently in The Sunday Telegraph about the House of Lords:
It is only because we have the power to vote that the Commons ever listens to anything we say. Only if the functions of the reformed House include the right to revise legislation, against the wishes of the Commons, will it be worth bothering with.
There is a grain of truth in that. The revising powers need to be looked at.
My fourth suggestion relates to the Select Committees of the second Chamber, which do a splendid job and have a substantial reputation. They are one of the second Chamber's current strengths, particularly because they enable unelected people who have spent a long time in other careers to bring their experience to bear. They are highly regarded, but I wonder how much influence their reports have. They are read by the experts and civil servants, but I must admit that they are not always the first documents that a Minister reads when dealing with policy issues in this place.
We could strengthen the powers of the Committees by building on the excellent work of the Joint Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, with reports to inform both Chambers. Pre-legislative Select Committees in the House of Lords, given the composition that I hope for, could have a substantial role. I hope that that answers the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) by showing some areas in which the powers could be extended.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be brief. Having given evidence as a Minister to Lords Committees, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is potentially the most frightening experience that a Minister can have?

Mr. MacGregor: I must have been lucky, because I do not recall that being the case. I certainly found the Committees stimulating and prepared heavily for them, as Ministers do for anything in this Chamber. However, if that was my right hon. Friend's experience, it strengthens my view that the Committees add to the ability of the second Chamber to contribute by dealing with pre-legislative issues.
I am doubtful about the concept of a wholly directly elected second Chamber. First, it would duplicate this Chamber. Secondly, as the White Paper pointed out,

it would be a recipe for conflict. The endless tensions are one reason why this Chamber would never agree to it. Unfortunately, such a Chamber would divide too often on purely party lines, duplicating what happens here. Thirdly, the second Chamber would expect a real and different role. If it did not get one, those who stood for election to it would, if they will forgive me, be the failed candidates for membership of this House, regarding it as a stepping stone towards their hope of coming here. Such a Chamber would not be a step forward. If it did not have powers, it would not attract people with a wide range of experience and careers to its wholly elected posts. It would certainly not be independent—that is an important element that many people have referred to—even under the ingenious Mackay proposals whereby Members would be elected for 15 years in total, with one third being elected every five years. That would remove some of the conflict and duplication, but it would not address my criticisms.
Those criticisms do not apply so much to a partly elected Chamber, but there are still difficulties that would need to be thought through, including the proportions and the possibility of there being two classes of Member. I do not have the same overall objections to a partly elected second Chamber.
The greatest merit lies in a mix of indirectly elected and nominated members. I stress the need for indirect election. I share the views of those who think that a Chamber that was wholly appointed, either by the Prime Minister or by his appointees, would be most undesirable. There are two advantages in Members being indirectly elected—independence and expertise. In his consultation paper, Lord Wakeham refers to the case for some Members to be active in other walks of life. I would go further than that: there is a strong case for a lot of Members to be active in other walks of life.

Mr. Hogg: And in this place.

Mr. MacGregor: As there should be in this place, but, alas, for reasons that we have discussed, that is too often not the case these days.
The bodies that would be involved in the process of indirect election are a matter for debate, and I shall not waste time on that now, but there are obvious professions, including the Church and the law, that could contribute to the indirectly elected element.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we lay too much emphasis on people who are active in other walks of life, they may not pay much attention to their duties in the second Chamber, which would diminish the ability of that Chamber to provide effective scrutiny of what the Government are doing?

Mr. MacGregor: I was coming to that. With a mix of indirectly elected, partly elected and nominated Members, there would be a considerable number of Members who could fulfil more of a full-time role. If we want to attract people with wide experience who have a lot to give to the process of legislation and debate, we have to accept that some of them can be there only part-time.

Mr. Tyrie: My right hon. Friend has argued for increased powers for the House of Lords so that it has the


ability to challenge the Executive and call it to account. Does he believe that a mish-mash House could have the necessary moral authority to challenge the authority of an Executive elected on a huge Commons mandate?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that there are grave difficulties with a wholly elected Chamber. It would duplicate the work of this Chamber. I do not accept that the only people with any moral authority are those who have been directly elected.
I have already said that Church representatives are important. I would remove the judicial role from the House of Lords and have it purely as a legislative and policy advisory Chamber, but I accept that there would need to be a substantial mix of lawyers in the indirectly elected element, because their expertise would be valuable, particularly in the scrutiny of secondary legislation. The proposals that I have outlined would provide the best mix of a second Chamber that complemented this one and attracted good people.
I cannot see the justification for the proposals regarding representatives of the devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales and the European Parliament. The proposals would duplicate the work that those Members should be doing in their own bodies. Regional interests are well represented in this House, and we should beware of excessive duplication and layers of government. The devolved bodies need to bed down first.
The proposals also raise the question of how the English regions would be represented. Representatives from regional assemblies would not be the way forward. Most of all, the proposals are wrong in principle, because there is no purpose in having a second Chamber composed of people from other elected Chambers. Absurdly, some elected representatives from this place would have to sit in the other place to represent England, complementing those from the Scottish Parliament. The case has not been made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that people from other walks of life might be only part-time members. Some life peers, including former colleagues from this place and some noted industrialists, hardly ever participate in the work of the House of Lords. The same is true of some hereditary peers. That has to be addressed. Members of the other place must agree to give a certain proportion of their time to the work of that place. I agree with the Mackay commission that some salary and allowance for secretarial and other help must be given, although I do not agree with the proposal that the allowances should be the same as those in this place.
I believe that this issue poses a great challenge to the House of Commons and particularly to the Government and the Government Whips. If the process is to be more than simply a device to pander to certain left-wing prejudices and get rid of the hereditary element, and is to be a genuine reform with a real purpose to improve our constitutional system and the control over the Executive, involving some of the most experienced and knowledgeable in our nation, the Government must face up to that and accept that it will mean real powers and real changes in the second Chamber. If that is not the case, we will have a House of Lords that is not much

different from now, except that the independent hereditary element will be displaced by appointed cronyism and even more concentration of power. That would be a hugely backward step, and I share the fear of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that that might happen. I must tell the Leader of the House that the Government will be judged on their response.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I am pleased to tell him that I agree with the vast majority of what he said. The spirit of his speech and its bipartisan nature—that applies also to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—is necessary in what is essentially a consultative debate. This is the House's road to Lord Wakeham. Doubtless his commission will take heavy note of what we say across the Floor of the House. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk concentrated on powers, but he had quite a bit to say on composition. I hope to complement him by saying a little more on composition. He will hear echoes of his speech in what I say, and I hope that I can advance some of his arguments.
Let me dispose of one point immediately by saying that House of Commons reform is relevant to whatever upper House we have ultimately. As other hon. Members have remarked, House of Commons reform is notoriously difficult to bring about. I am pessimistic about it in the shorter term, but optimistic in the longer term. The Modernisation Committee, which is a noble effort to improve matters, does not move with the speed of an Olympic 100 m sprinter, to put it mildly. Reform will take time. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that if we create a reformed upper House, which will inevitably come, it will be a great spur to the House of Commons to speed up its reforms.
In reverse order to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, I will deal first with composition and then deal with functions and powers.

Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Temple-Morris: I want to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of interventions; I will give way later.
I want to state how I see the upper House, and I shall begin with what we do not want. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk that we do not want an all-elected Chamber. It would inevitably challenge the House of Commons and its method of election could make it almost an embarrassment to this place. There have been suggestions that it should be elected, in whole or in part, under proportional representation. We must bear in mind the electoral system that prevails for this place and which results in its various characteristics, such as, for example, the lack of Conservatives in entire tracts of the country. Under proportional representation, the Conservatives have now become represented again, but there would immediately be a clash. We cannot get round that, even with some fancy system of staggered long terms, because there would still be a claim that they should be more representative at any given moment. Please, no all-elected Chamber.
We do not want an all-appointed Chamber. Anyone who looks at matters in a somewhat old-fashioned way might see certain attractions in the power of patronage and appointment. It might be seen as an admirable concept under which there could be a great variety of people. However, the public perception, which is all important, is that it would be cronyism gone mad. It would have no legitimacy; the Canadian Senate is a good example. That goes out.
What do we want? There are some interesting guidelines in the admirable White Paper, which is a fair document. Page 6, paragraph 6 states:
But the second chamber must have a distinctive role and must neither usurp, nor threaten, the supremacy of the first chamber.
That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is important that this Chamber remains supreme.
Page 6, paragraph 9 of the White Paper states:
The most distinctive and important role of the present House of Lords is the specialist expertise and independent perspective it can bring to the scrutiny of legislation. But the House of Lords and the work it carries out suffer from its lack of legitimacy".
It then goes on to deal with the House of Lords as at present constituted.
We need to strike a balance between the necessary expertise and legitimacy in the eyes of the public. It follows from those guidelines that we need a mixed Chamber, and I believe that, at the end of the debate, many hon. Members will favour that. The difficulty, as hon. Members agree, is to decide on what mix one has.
Let us look at some criteria for a mixed Chamber. It is essential that we should have the necessary expertise and a relatively independent collective attitude. The last thing we want is a copy of this place. We need part-timers with outside interests—they functioned here until comparatively recently. We must institute a system whereby they can continue to function because those whom we want to get in would not be interested in a Chamber that was any different from that. I welcome the White Paper's view that there should be no automatic party majority, which is very much part of the same point.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman says that it is self-evident that the Members should have the necessary expertise. Would he define what he means by "expertise" and tell us how they acquire it?

Mr. Temple-Morris: All will be revealed as my speech continues. That was a helpful intervention, but if I answered the hon. Gentleman now, I would lose the sequence of my speech. I hope that I will have dealt with it in some depth by the end of my speech.
We also need depth of representation to supplement this place. I am already beginning to answer the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) because, however we achieve that depth of representation, we need to deal with aspects such as occupation, region, gender, ethnic origin and so on.
I shall now deal with the mixed Chamber—part appointed and part elected, directly or indirectly.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has said that he is moving on to deal with a part-appointed and part-elected

Chamber, by which he clearly accepts that part of the Chamber needs to be appointed. Might there be a possibility that the elected Members, who should be the vast majority, co-opt those who are not elected, thereby removing the power of patronage entirely and enhancing the legitimacy of the Chamber?

Mr. Temple-Morris: Much as I respect the interventions that the hon. Gentleman makes on my speeches, my answer is no, no, no. One has only to look at the Irish Senate and the political nature of the electorate there to realise that an admirable system can go wildly wrong. The last thing we want is for those who are elected, by whatever means, to reproduce themselves by way of appointment.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Temple-Morris: I will not give way again. I have not even answered the hon. Gentleman yet.
It is important that, to a certain extent, the power of patronage, well controlled by way of an independent appointments commission, stays with us in order to get the people we need who would not dream of coming forward under any other form of election.
The proportions within a mixed Chamber have been mentioned. It is important to remain flexible at this stage. On Second Reading, I talked about 70 'per cent. being elected—the vast majority—and 30 per cent. being appointed, or one third being appointed, one third being elected and one third being functional constituencies, or colleges of interest as I called them. I am sorry to distress the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, but now I tend to go for more appointed Members. I would even go up to about 40 per cent. We need flexibility of appointment to get the right people in—I return to the point about expertise and independence of view, and the Cross-Bench element.
The period of appointment is directly relevant to the continuity of the House and its independence. It is a difficult subject which was touched on by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. Particularly if we want younger people in, we have to consider the possibility of reappointment, but that limits independence. I have thought about the matter as, no doubt, have others, but, at the end of the day, rather than any particular term, appointment should be for life or the age of 75. We hope that all the Members have a happy and healthy retirement. I see that element of appointment as the foundation or the permanent feature of the new House of Lords.
I now turn to the elected part of the upper House. Touching again on a point raised by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, direct election, whether it is regional or anything else, would produce the dreadful danger of party hacks. The upper Chamber would become a second division and, like the Irish Senate, to use an example that I know very well, in some ways it would be a waiting room for those who wanted to get down to this end of the building. In my view, direct elections should be avoided at all costs.
That leaves us with indirect elections, which need to avoid a political electorate. I referred briefly to that in reply to an intervention. The Irish Senate operates by way of functional constituencies. It is lovely on paper and it could work very well. Sometimes the system is criticised without the realisation that it is not the system, but the


electorate that is wrong. The electorate comprises the Members of the Dail and members of Irish local authorities, who form one of the most highly political electorates in the country, and the same would apply here.
There is nothing wrong with functional constituencies provided that we get the electorate right. In regard to the electorate, the answer is quite simple: they should elect themselves. The indirect system of election involves colleges of interest or functional constituencies. They could include representatives of the main areas of activity, such as business, the professions, trade unions and so on. The European Parliament could be a functional constituency, not in terms of electing its own Members, but it could elect a representative. The devolved Parliament and Assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could also be involved.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk that when Members of the European Parliament were first elected in 1974, many hon. Members standing said that there could be a dual mandate. If I remember rightly, after the first European election in 1979, only one solitary MEP remained a Member of Parliament after 1984.

Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. In the spirit of the debate, which is more a discussion, is there not a difficulty with the system of colleges of election? The Irish one began in the 1930s. Is it not the truth that it derived from a fascist form of government? I do not mean that pejoratively, but that was its origin: the idea of an estate of the realm made up of corporations. Is not the problem that the system typecasts people into categories, whereas all the evidence is that today's society is very fluid and that people are not typecast in that fashion?

Mr. Temple-Morris: I do not think that bringing fascism into the debate is particularly helpful. I do not find the Republic of Ireland a particularly fascist state. Having dealt with that rather extreme part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I should say that the election should be conducted democratically. There is no earthly reason why it should not be—I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Bar Council, for example, would be perfectly capable of putting people up to go to the upper House and electing such people at its annual meeting. Any professional, business or equivalent body in the country would have no difficulty in doing that. Such an election is a way to get in people in a representative capacity other than by appointing them by power of patronage, from wherever it comes. In addition, it would provide the opportunity for indirect election from regional councils in order to get regional representatives.
With regard to period of office, I do not think that there is anything wrong with having two different types of Members of the upper House. Appointed Members should be for life or until the age of 75. It is a matter for discussion, but a fair term of office for those indirectly elected by way of functional constituencies would be for the duration of a Parliament. Indeed, many of those representing such constituencies may not want to do so permanently; they may want to do a spell in Parliament.
Finally, I wish to make a few specific points about functions and powers. First, the Law Lords have been mentioned. As I said on Second Reading, I do not

believe that the Law Lords belong to the legislature. Their presence is almost an accident of history; at one point, no one else had the skill to try such significant cases. They could quite easily continue as a supreme court of appeal, sitting in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as they do today on certain matters. However, that is no bar to senior judges being nominated to the House of Lords. Inevitably, many of them will be and, no doubt, there will be plenty of lawyers in that Chamber.
Secondly, I know that there are constitutional complications in respect of the bishops, but I do not think that they belong in a modern legislature. That problem needs to be addressed. In some cases, they could be nominated. Indeed, the Churches could be functional constituencies. As a member of the Church of England, let me make the point that we need representatives of more Churches and faiths than just the Church of England by constitutional right.
Thirdly, the position of Ministers crept in by way of an intervention. I see no reason why Ministers need to be Members of the House of Lords. The concept of having Government spokesmen, as occurs in most other Parliaments of the democratic world, could easily apply to the Lords. Ministers should be firmly in the House of Commons. There seems to me no earthly reason why Ministers could not, where necessary, have a right of audience in the House of Lords. That occurs in many other democratic Parliaments.
The upper House should seriously consider allowing rights of audience or outside participation. The right way to deal with our devolved Parliaments and Assemblies is not to appoint their representatives there, although they may be colleges of interest, but to allow First Ministers, and so on, a right of audience in the upper House, if they so wish, in respect of crucial legislation. That occurs not only in the European Parliament, but in other Parliaments.
Finally, I wish to make an important general point with regard to powers. We have to get it right as it is a serious matter. While we want a vigorous and strong House of Lords which must play its part in controlling the Executive, we should be under no illusion; whatever powers we give Members of the upper House at the end of the process will be used. I emphasise that. There will not be any of the present deference or standing back; almost by definition, the new upper House will use whatever clout we give it. Therefore, the House must take the matter seriously, and I welcome the careful process that the Government have set in train by appointing the royal commission, which shows every promise of producing a good and constructive report, and then involving the Joint Committee and both Houses of Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, the process will take some time. I have no doubt from the debate thus far that we are taking it seriously. It is an important process that will improve our governance for the future.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that this was one of those occasions when the House of Commons tended to make speeches rather than listen to them. I congratulate him on sitting throughout the debate with evident interest.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is here, because I want to address an issue of great importance, which he raised. He had a somewhat world-weary view about the


prospect of reform of the upper House, based on his 30 years in this House, and one could have a degree of sympathy with that. However, he showed a perhaps surprising radicalism in his belief that the Liaison Committee might succeed in creating a new career track for Members of the House of Commons, which would so transform the work of this place that it might become a significant check on the Executive in a different manner from that which it has exercised during our time here.
One can exaggerate the extent to which there has been a falling off from a golden age of the House of Commons, which has been exceedingly partisan in the past and not just within the memory of those sitting here today. Historically—on issues such as the reform of the House of Lords during the first decade of this century, home rule for Ireland and many other matters—the House of Commons has shown itself to be a partisan place; perhaps that is its function.
As people are anxious to preserve the authority and distinctiveness of the House of Commons as the fount of Executive Government, it would seem likely that that will remain. Our approach to the reform of the House of Lords should take into account the probability that the House of Commons will remain similar to its present form. Whatever may be the developments in the Liaison Committee—about which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke-I hope that they will be progressed. The House of Lords has the potential to become more effective in the discharge of a different role from its present one.
For that reason, I was glad to hear the Leader of the House say that the royal commission should focus on that role, and should approach the matter fundamentally and—she did not use this word, although she clearly intended it—radically. That is an entirely desirable approach. That caution should prevent the royal commission from being lost in the deltoid sands at the outturn of a river—something that would occur if it waited to see how this House reforms its procedure to make it more effective.
The Leader of the House reflected the approach of the Prime Minister, before he became Prime Minister, in his John Smith speech in 1996, when he said that the Labour party had always favoured an elected upper House. That message would not be appropriate for the Government to enunciate in terms today. Having set up a royal commission, it would be wrong to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and tell the royal commission what it should do, for the reasons given so effectively by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). None the less, the royal commission will have in mind the fact that the clear view, as stated by the Prime Minister, that the Labour party has always favoured an elected second Chamber.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) produced a kind of consensus, but I hope profoundly that that consensus does not inform the thinking of the royal commission. I could not have disagreed more with the view of the hon. Member for Leominster that it makes sense to go towards a system of election from functional constituencies. For the sake of avoiding academic discussion, I will not address the issue of whether the idea has fascist roots or not. However, it is clear that it is an impractical suggestion.
The hon. Member for Leominster spoke about the sense of giving a member of the Bar Council a position in the House of Lords as of right—but why? I am a barrister, but I cannot see why the legal profession—if that is what the hon. Gentleman is proposing-should be represented by somebody from the Bar. Why not somebody from the Law Society, or from the magistrates' clerks?

Mr. Temple-Morris: Why not?

Mr. Maclennan: Why not indeed? We could have six, seven, eight, 10 or a dozen people with some claim from a functional constituency to represent the law in its workings, and that could be true of every other profession. In terms of the medical profession, is it to be the president of the Royal College of Surgeons or the president of the Royal College of Anaesthetists? Are we to get the entire medical profession together? Are we to have the patients, as a functional constituency, electing someone to represent them in the upper House? Tourism is a huge industry, and represents tremendously important earnings capacity in this country. Who is to speak for it?

Mr. Hogg: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Is there not an added vice, to which he may shortly come—that the members chosen by some functional college would regard themselves in some way as delegates of that functional college, and would not approach matters in the broader way that I hope that Members of the second Chamber would adopt?

Mr. Maclennan: I entirely agree. Not only would there be a problem with the latitudinarianism of those who would claim to be the spokespersons for a sector of opinion, but there would be the problem of their becoming out of date. How long can they go on claiming to speak for that functional constituency? The issue has been too easily used as a kind of halfway house towards the election of the upper House.
I think that it is an evasion—an evasion of an issue that was put directly by a previous Conservative commission, led by Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1978, on the composition of the upper House. That report completely refuted the speech of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a former Leader of the House, in terms. It stated:
Moral authority can only come from the direct election of its Members.
There is the point. We have not heard enough in the debate about the virtues of democracy.
The Leader of the House talked about the importance of legitimacy, and that is a function of democracy. However, if the new, reformed House is to speak with authority, it must draw its legitimacy from direct elections. If it is not to be a reflection of this House—there is some consensus on that, although not on how that is to be achieved—I would suggest, praying in aid the Douglas-Home commission, that it must be elected in a different manner from the House of Commons.
Douglas-Home was not squeamish about urging a proportional system; nor would I be about advocating the single transferable vote for such elections, as it would ensure the probability that not only would no single party dominate that House but that its Members would represent substantially different constituencies, drawn from a much


wider geographical base. If the experience of other countries with the single transferable vote is any guide, it would also bring in that very mix of people that it is our common wish to see elected.

Mr. Letwin: I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks because I understood his party to favour that system for this House. How would its introduction in the second Chamber differentiate it from the first if his desires for the first were also achieved?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is running a little behind, which is surprising from him, as he is one of the most acute members of the Conservative Front Bench. The Liberal Democrats happily welcomed the Jenkins report's recommendation of alternative vote plus for this House, which would build on existing parliamentary constituencies—that is its virtue—but that is something entirely different from what is being advocated for the upper House. We are observing the rubric of the Douglas-Home commission, which seems to make eminently good sense.

Mr. Temple-Morris: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am a supporter of electoral reform, but does he seriously think that the House would create an upper House that could in many ways be argued to be more representative than this place? Does he honestly think that that is on, or practical?

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the single transferable vote is an eminently democratic system of election, but I would not for a minute suggest that it is more democratic than the proposal of the Jenkins commission, which will be the subject of a referendum. That is how the matter should be decided, and how the Government have undertaken that it will be decided. I do not doubt that the House can live with a touch of democracy, if that is what he is inferring that it might not be prepared to accept.
Most of today's speeches have, rightly, focused on what is the point of the upper House, what it should do that it is not doing and whether it needs more powers to do it effectively. It is fair to say that the House of Lords has many powers that it feels constrained from using because it lacks legitimacy. I do not set my face against change, and there are several areas in which I think that it would be desirable—for example, involving the upper House, as has been suggested by many of its Members, in greater scrutiny of treaty making, and giving it more of a role in scrutinising secondary legislation—but the real inhibition on the effectiveness of the upper House concerns not its powers but the sense that, if it were to seek to face down the Government, its wings would be clipped.
That is why I asked the right hon. Member for South Norfolk the question, which he did not answer, whether there were occasions on which he would now, with the benefit of hindsight, say that it would have been a good thing if the Government of which he was a distinguished member for a long time had been faced down by a reformed second Chamber. He has not said so, so we must take it that it is his view that the present balance of power between the Executive and the legislature, in its

manifestation in the House of Lords, is about right. That is why he did not advocate anything more fundamental or radical than he did.

Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that the four areas that I listed showed where I thought that the upper Chamber, and to some extent this House, was deficient in its scrutiny of the Executive.

Mr. Maclennan: I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has argued that there are deficiencies, but he has not said how he would give the upper House the authority to deal with them effectively. By espousing the minimalist changes that he has recommended, he fortifies the belief that he is broadly content with the current balance of power between the Executive and the legislature.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is asking, fairly, whether those who have been in government can identify measures that we think that the upper House should have rejected. I most certainly can: for example, the ability that we instituted to try people for war crimes committed during the second world war; that was wrong in principle and I wish that the second Chamber had voted it down. As a rather more dramatic example, with hindsight, the community charge was a disaster and I very much wish that the other place had voted that down, too.

Mr. Maclennan: Not for the first time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown himself to be more robust and outspoken than some of his colleagues, but his example of the war crimes legislation was a rather surprising one, because it was an occasion on which the upper House did indeed vote down the Government, although it was not of course able to carry its way because, ultimately, the Parliament Act was invoked.
We have not had a debate about the Parliament Act and whether it should be more widely open to the House of Lords to have the last word. If the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in our polity flows from anything, it is first from the fact that it is the bed from which Ministers are plucked, and secondly from the fact that we have the last word on legislation, save in the extraordinary case, referred to specifically by the Leader of the House, of the possibility of extending the life of a Parliament beyond five years.
There are other matters over which it might be reasonable to consider that the House of Lords should be able to exercise such a power. The essence of the power that it has is in respect of major constitutional change, and that principle might be embraced for issues such as any suggestion of tampering with the Representation of the People Acts and the provisions for secret voting.

Mr. Grieve: I earlier said that I did not consider the Irish model a particularly good one, but may I extol one virtue of it—the possibility of a conflict on a constitutional issue being the trigger for a referendum?

Mr. Maclennan: That is an entirely sensible suggestion, and I would be happy to endorse it.
On constitutional matters, because of the dominance of this Chamber by the Government, which I believe to be virtually inevitable, it is valuable to have another


Chamber with a checking power. It should not be a power to stand in the way for all time if there is consensus for reform, but if there is doubt about that consensus—about the view of the public—it would seem appropriate to give the House of Lords the ability to block legislation. For example, it would have been appropriate to block the winding up of the government of London without the calling of a referendum of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
The composition of the second Chamber should embrace the principle of democratic legitimacy. The argument deployed against that by the proponents of a partially, or even predominantly, appointed upper House is that the great virtue of the House of Lords as it stands is its expertise.
It is true that there are people of quality of mind and of experience—business experience, and so forth. I do not deny that we have been able to enjoy contributions of great merit and moment from such people in the past. I think they have probably given the raft, or the afflatus of oxygen, that has kept the place alive, but I feel less certain whether we should look to that as the crucial test in the future. That is partly because of the difficulties associated with functional constituencies, which will spill over however we decide to appoint, rather than to elect, the Members.
If we are to appoint people of experience, how do we choose them? That is made no easier by removing the political element from the choice and putting the function at arm's length from the Government by setting up an appointments commission, itself perhaps appointed by the Government. There is still a real problem of choice. The wisest people in the world, choosing among the wisest people available, would still not be able to satisfy us that those people were, by virtue of their expertise, more legitimate than many who were not appointed. That is an impossibilist course to advocate.
It makes sense for people to put their trust in democracy. If the upper House is drawn from a different base, and elected by a different franchise and method of election, and if it has clearly demarcated functions, it will attract a different kind of person.
I have heard the arguments across the Chamber about whether there should be Ministers in the upper House. Personally, I think that there are powerful arguments against their being there. If there were no Ministers in the upper House, that would remove at a stroke people who desire to be involved in the career patronage there, which is a pale reflection of what happens in this House but still to some extent colours that House's proceedings. That is a meritorious argument, worthy of consideration.
If the avenue of the revitalised upper House is not the primary route to ministerial office, that House will in any event have a different flavour and function, and could attract different people. It might prove attractive to public spirited people who have made their mark in other walks of life, and who wish to give some direct public service at a later stage, perhaps, than the younger professional full-time politicians who, it has been suggested, now

dominate our debates, although to me that charge seems a slight exaggeration. That would certainly be a different sort of upper House, and that is where I would put my trust.
I hope that, in considering the functions and the reform of the upper House, Lord Wakeham and his colleagues will not be too sensitive about the possibility of the House of Commons bolting because of its fear of what a revitalised upper House might do. It would be a discreditable stance for this House to say that the legitimacy of the other House should, in perpetuity—or even as far ahead as we can see—remain tarnished by other than democratic principles. To put it more simply, the upper House should become as democratically legitimate as this House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, but how, in his directly elected upper House, would he ensure that those who do not belong to a party would have the opportunity of being elected? How could he ensure that elections would not be conducted on party lines? If he could not, he could not guarantee the presence of any independents.

Mr. Maclennan: That problem has exercised me; that is why I have retained a residual commitment to an element involving appointed Members. There is a case—perhaps not a very strong one—for such an element, to accommodate just such people. That has always—or at least, for the past decade or so—been my party's position, and I see the point of it.
When we consider the performance of the upper House today, we see that one can exaggerate the significance of that independent element, as it now exists, in shaping policy and reactions to the Government. The participation rates of the so-called independents and Cross Benchers, both in votes and in other ways, are substantially lower than those of the partisan Members who accept a Whip. We also have to weigh in the balance the concern that the more one increases the independent Cross-Bench element, the more one decreases the right of the House to be listened to on equal terms with this House as an expression of genuine democratic opinion.

Mr. Grieve: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the question that I asked the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), about co-option? Surely there would be more legitimacy if the Members who had been elected, by whatever means, were required to co-opt a certain percentage of Members of the upper House to deliberate with them. That would introduce the independent element that is so desirable.

Mr. Maclennan: It is asking too much, even of altruism, to expect people to co-opt independents. Even in the sort of House that I am talking about, I cannot imagine that the Whips would play no part.

Mr. Grieve: Suppose that we had a system in which co-option was done by two-thirds majority voting, with the aim of ensuring that independent Members were brought in. That might work quite well, and we would be mistaken to ignore the possibility.

Mr. Maclennan: I ignore nothing, and I shall certainly explore that idea—but I tend to think that if partisanship


were not the quality sought by those doing the co-opting, clubability might replace it, and I am not sure that that would be any better.
On the other hand, it is right to emphasise to the Wakeham commission our overriding desire that the main defects of the upper House should be removed. Despite its expertise, the quality of its best debates, and the assiduity of its tireless Members, who sit through the night and sometimes long into the summer, the importance of the House of Lords is diminishing in our scheme of things, because it is not democratic. There is no way of reversing that by tinkering. Either we accept the need for democracy in that Chamber or we shall have to start thinking in terms of unicameralism and other ways of bringing the Executive to task, for we cannot look to that House in its present form to do that.
I do not think that this House can, or should, behave very differently from the way that it behaves already. That is not a matter of complacency. I have found its ways so unappealing at times that I have even been forced to change my political party, so I do not make that remark lightly. However, in reality, a House that is the avenue to Executive office will always be one in which the Government have great and overwhelming influence, except when an accident of electoral fate results in a narrow majority.
That being so, we would do well to use this great opportunity to reform the House of Lords that the Government are giving us to see whether we can include more checks and balance in our system, and build in greater balance between the Executive and the legislature. That is certainly long overdue.

Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), especially as I agree with so much of what he said. Indeed, many elements of the debate appear to be agreed by hon. Members from all parts of the House. There seems to be agreement that we should have a reformed and modern second Chamber, that it should be independent, representative, distinctive and non-competitive—that is, that the second Chamber should complement rather than challenge this Chamber's authority and primacy.
However, I said that hon. Members appear to agree on those points, because I suspect that those characteristics mean different things to different people. For example, there is the question of independence. I suspect that the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—and the Leader of the House in her opening remarks—used the word "independence" to mean "of no party". To me, and I sense to many others, it is much more interesting and important that independence should refer to independence of government.
That is hard to achieve, because the power of government in both Chambers, as exercised by the Whips and as described many hon. Members in this debate, is reinforced by the understandable ambitions of people—in this House and in the other place, and regardless of whether they are in opposition—to achieve government. Therefore, the only way to ensure true independence for

a second Chamber is to remove the Government from it, and to make it a House of parliamentarians, in which parliamentary scrutiny is an end in itself.
I was interested that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire implied that that would not be attractive to people. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and believe that it would be attractive. It is an important and fascinating role, and the enthusiasm and skill with which Select Committees in both Houses fulfil it shows how important and satisfying it could be.
There is general agreement that the power of the Executive has grown under all Governments, both in general and in particular. Reference has been made to the enormous growth over recent Parliaments in the numbers of statutory instruments, and to the fact that they cannot be amended. I disagree with those who seem to criticise the House of Commons, at least by implication, for not doing a decent job in holding the Government to account. Faced with Governments and Executives, of both parties, who have skilfully and successfully found it to be an imperative of government in a difficult and complex state to take more power to themselves, the House of Commons does its scrutiny work well. That is evident in the work of the Select Committees and, often, in debate.
It is regrettable that Question Times have become almost a farce. Their style is reminiscent of Japanese Noh theatre, with the Minister knowing what the question will be and hon. Members knowing what the answer will be. They are of little democratic interest and are not effective in holding the Government to account, but in other respects the House of Commons does a good job. However, a second Chamber, especially one freed from the Executive and with scrutiny as its prime role, could and would perform differently. In doing so, it would augment the quality of our Parliament, and vary the type of scrutiny to which the Executive are subjected.
There is also the question of representation. It is right that a second Chamber must be representative, but representative of whom, and accountable to whom? If the second Chamber is appointed, it can be representative only of the will of the person, or of the commission of selection, who appointed it. However much the Prime Minister wants to place that commission at arm's length—a laudable aim—it will be appointed by government and inevitably will be made up of the great and the good. It is their stamp, therefore, that will be on that Chamber.
Most crucially, not only will the Chamber not be representative of anyone but the commission, but it will not be accountable to anyone. That idea is ridiculous and an affront.

Mr. Hogg: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument and broadly agree. However, is not the criticism of an appointed Chamber ultimately that it lacks political legitimacy? In the world in which we live, the only legitimacy that stands scrutiny is that which stems from election.

Mr. Fisher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates my next point: a Chamber that is neither representative nor accountable has no roots in our nation, and so has no democratic legitimacy. I strongly believe in a Chamber that is democratically elected and accountable to people. That is how we all came to be here, and it is


therefore the source of the legitimacy of half of Parliament. The task, as we enter a new century, is to determine how to finish democracy's job and extend that democratic accountability beyond this Chamber to the whole of Parliament.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of clarification, is it implicit in the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Head of State should also be elected?

Mr. Fisher: Certainly not: we are talking about our Parliament, all of which I believe should be accountable to the people of this country. At present, people are denied any say in half of our Parliament. In all the debates, media articles and speculation on the subject—which the Government and the royal commission have rightly stimulated by at long last facing up to the problem—we have heard little about the rights of the people.
That is true, too, about this evening's debate. Much has been heard about the theoretical virtues of different bases of representation and composition, but where do people fit in? There is a distaste for, or a lack of interest in, what people in this country are being denied that I find extraordinary. Surely the right to vote for the people who will determine and scrutinise legislation is at the core of our democracy. We have just created Parliaments for Scotland and for Wales, and there is one in Northern Ireland. We are reforming local authorities and tomorrow we will elect people to represent us at the European Parliament.
It would be outrageous if, in forming the new Parliaments and renewing our representation in the forums that already exist, we said that part of the representation in those forums should be by appointment. No one has suggested that that should happen by appointment. No one has suggested that it would be better if the Parliament in Scotland had been partly appointed, or indirectly elected through the Scottish local authorities. People in Scotland wanted a voice in their Parliament, and I believe that the people of the wider United Kingdom have a right to a say over everyone who sits in their legislature.

Mr. Forth: I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he accept that we have agreed to a unicameral legislature in Scotland, which not many people would contemplate for the UK as a whole? Is that not a paradox?

Mr. Fisher: It may be so, but a Parliament such as Scotland's, which contains a comparatively small number of Members, would find it difficult to define two distinct roles. The right hon. Gentleman asks an open and interesting question, but, given that we have a complicated United Kingdom Parliament augmented by separate Parliaments in Scotland and Wales, the people of Scotland made the right decision.
We have tried appointed systems in the past. Our first Members of the European Parliament were appointed from this Chamber, not elected. We were right to abandon that system, saying that the people had the right to say directly who should represent them in the European Parliament. We were right, too, to get rid of the aldermanic system. There used to be functional constituencies in the universities and we were right to get rid of those.
The history of our democracy has been of a slow clawing back from the Executive—first, the monarch, then the lords and the aristocracy—the right of the people to have a say. We completed that process only in this century when, between the wars and at long last, women got the vote. Universal democracy is a recent innovation, but we have never had it in full. It has applied to only half of our legislature. We have an opportunity to say that everyone who discusses legislation and affairs of state should be elected. Anything less is unacceptable.
I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who clearly disagrees with me. He and others will have to tell their constituents that we are modernising the House of Lords, but that they should have no say in who should sit in it. They will have to tell their constituents that the choice should be made for them and that someone should appoint those who sit in it. Can any hon. Member on either side of the House seriously look his or her constituents in the eye and tell them that they are not sufficiently wise or competent to decide who should sit in the second Chamber during the next century?

Sir Patrick Cormack: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a real affection, that is precisely what his Government will make people do tomorrow. No one will be directly elected. No voter in any constituency will vote for an individual.

Mr. Fisher: I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was not happy with the closed-list system and I do not like being unable to distinguish between individual representatives. Some representatives of each party do a good job, and others do not. People in our towns and cities know very well who the competent people are, but they will not be able tomorrow to ensure that the competent return to Brussels while the incompetent return whence they came.
We need to establish that people have the right to a say. The Government are fond of the expression "the many, not the few". It is becoming a mantra, and I would willingly never hear it again.

Mr. Forth: How about "the third way"?

Mr. Fisher: I do not disagree with the spirit of the expression, merely with the way in which it trips off the tongue, sucked of almost all meaning. The principle is correct, of course, but it is ironic that a Government for whom the many, not the few is a mantra should appear so uncertain about giving the many—the democracy—the right to vote rather than giving it to the few, or the oligarchy.
If we have an appointed or even an indirectly elected second Chamber, we shall turn away from democracy, which is government by the people, to oligarchy, which is government by the select few. Will we really enter the 21st century by modernising our second Chamber so that we have an oligarchy? Is that the way to express our country's needs? It is absurd. We are a democratic people and we have fought hard for centuries to try to extend democracy. Thanks to the Government, it is at long last within our grasp, but we seem uncertain about whether we wish to grasp the opportunity.
The most compelling argument against an elected second Chamber made tonight and by the Government has been that the authority conferred by elections to both


would create gridlock, threatening the primacy of the Commons and undermining the clarity of government. The authority of government resides in this Chamber, and it is here that the Government are rightly held to account. I do not accept that argument. That need not happen as long as the rules and the functions of the two Chambers are distinct.
Over several decades, we have made the mistake of establishing primacy in this Chamber by the illegitimacy of the membership of the other Chamber. Except for a few diehards who love the hereditary principle, the other place is cautious about exercising its many and considerable powers because the world and the Members of the other place know that it is illegitimate. We have been content that that has been so because it has established our authority, but our primacy should not rely on a broken-backed composition of the other Chamber. It should depend on clarity in the roles and functions of the two Chambers. The way in which to establish that clarity is by enacting a new Parliament Act.

Mr. Tyrie: The existence of the Parliament Acts is the reason why gridlock would be unlikely. They give supremacy to this House and, in the event of a clash, the Commons can always win by exercising the Acts. Only once has there been gridlock in the modern history of the two Houses, and that arose over the definition of the rules of the Parliament Acts themselves.

Mr. Fisher: Some people would say that we have come close to gridlock in recent weeks. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said—and has written extremely well—about the House of Lords, but the Parliament Acts are deficient in some key respects. If we are to establish clear and distinct roles for the two Chambers, which must be the aim of any reform, we need a new Parliament Act that will recognise and enshrine the primacy of the Commons and legislate on areas currently covered by the Salisbury convention.
The growth of that convention since 1945 is the reason why the Parliament Acts are unsatisfactory. It is wrong to distinguish between the two Chambers by convention alone. It would be clearer and simpler to have their roles detailed in primary legislation that would maintain for the second Chamber the power to amend and delay—though possibly for a shorter period—and that would extend that Chamber's powers to secondary and European legislation. A new Act should remove some of the inflexibility of the present Acts with regard to unamended Bills, and it should extend to House of Lords Bills and delegated legislation. It should also provide procedures for mediation. Of course, if the Government were removed from that Chamber, its power to initiate legislation would have to be removed.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a well-reasoned and powerful speech. Does he agree that if the Lords were elected for fixed terms with rotational election so that a certain proportion were up for election at any given time, the chance of a clash would be minimised because its role would be seen as wholly distinct from that of this Chamber, whose mandate is renewed when the Government go to the country?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, but it would be essential that the Chambers were not elected at the same time, to emphasise

the distinction between the two. However, that is less important than having very different functions in relation to the Executive. The most encouraging element of this debate has been the agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House on removing the Executive from the second Chamber. That would at a stroke transform its nature, improving it radically. It would also enormously improve this Chamber and scrutiny of the Executive.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I was surprised when the Leader of the House said that we were considering only reform of the House of Lords. The two Chambers are interdependent and their reform must be considered together. We are talking about one Parliament and how the two Chambers can work together to represent the views of our people and ensure that we are well governed. What happens in the upper Chamber affects what happens here.
I believe that such changes would recreate a modern, independent, representative, accountable, non-competitive second Chamber of which we could be proud and which this Chamber need not fear. We would benefit from its intelligence, wisdom and scrutiny, while this Chamber would continue to be the locus of government and therefore the source of power of the Executive. Those objectives depend on a democratic route to giving our people a voice that I believe to be long overdue. I hope that it will soon come to pass.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), with whom I have had a long friendship going back to the earliest times. I regret that he is no longer a Front Bencher.

Sir Patrick Cormack: He would have made a different speech if he were.

Mr. Hogg: That may be true, but I am sure that he would be urging his case as strongly within the Government. The House is the poorer for his no longer being a Front Bencher.
I do not know whether it is strictly necessary but to avoid possible criticism I declare a personal interest in that my wife and father sit in the other Chamber and I stand to inherit a hereditary peerage. I hasten to add that I have always intended to remain in this House if my constituents are willing to make it possible.
Perhaps partly because of my background but also because of a long-standing interest in historical matters and the constitution, I have always been interested in reform of the House of Lords. I have long held first, that we should substantially increase the powers of the second Chamber and secondly, that we should therefore confer proper political legitimacy on it. That goes back to the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. The only legitimacy that exists in Britain today stems from direct election. I shall explain in more detail later, but I therefore conclude that the second Chamber should have substantially increased powers and be largely—or as I would prefer, wholly—elected.
Discussion of the composition of the second Chamber must begin by focusing on powers and functions. The Government's approach has been criticised because it deals with composition separately from functions and


purpose. We cannot consider functions without also considering how this House performs its function of holding the Government to proper account. If this House is discharging its functions well, we need to make relatively little change to the powers of the second Chamber; it is only if this House is not exercising its functions well that we need substantially to enhance them. If we are content to leave the second Chamber with its powers largely as they are now—this is not my position—I would argue that there is no real case for changing its composition either.
In fact, there is an argument for the present composition of the second Chamber. There are advantages in a mixed system of hereditary and appointed peers. Most obviously, there is a measure of independence to be found among the hereditary peerage that should be acknowledged by this House. We must also acknowledge that appointment does not by itself confer any more obvious legitimacy than the hereditary principle, but it does confer on the Government very extensive powers of patronage that I regard as undesirable. However, I do not have to defend the status quo on composition because I want the second Chamber's powers to be greatly enhanced.
I have come to this view—to be fair to myself, I held it as a Minister over 13 years—because I do not believe that this House will or can properly hold a Government and Executive to account. It is not just a lack of will, but an inherent inability that stems from the constitutional settlement that has existed for very many years. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was right about that.
We do not have a separation of powers. From that, it follows that the Executive are in this Chamber. Provided that the Executive can control their own party, they can do as they please, subject to relatively few external constraints. There are some, which I shall mention shortly but only touch on now. The European Union has a measure of control, as does the European convention on human rights. Subject to those, the Executive who control their own party can do what they please. That is inherent in the constitution. Of course, the problem is aggravated by a Government with a very large majority as we have now, but we have had a Conservative Government with a very large majority. It is further aggravated—this is probably the only party political point that I shall make—if we have a Prime Minister and Ministers who have a highly developed contempt for this House.
In substance, the problem has nothing to do with the Labour party, but is inherent in the constitutional settlement that has been in place for decades. It stems from the fact that there is no separation of powers. In that respect, I have always held that the American model was infinitely preferable. However, I am not foolish enough to suppose that we shall ever bring it about—at least not in my lifetime, and probably not in the lifetime of my children or my grandchildren.
An Opposition Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), is sitting in front of me, so I am sorry to have to say that the very tight control that parties exercise over their Back Benchers undermines democracy.

I thought so when I was a Conservative Government Whip, although, having taken the Queen's salt, I performed my functions with enthusiasm.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. and learned Friend was dreadful.

Mr. Hogg: As my hon. Friend says, I was dreadful. I was certainly a vigorous Whip, but I acted disapproving of myself. Furthermore, if I may say so, I did not necessarily have a high regard for those of my colleagues to whom I gave instruction. The tight control that the Whips exercise over their parties positively diminishes the reputation of this place and indeed our ability to control the Executive.

Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fault lies mainly not with the people who are doing the whipping, but with the recipients, in that the system does not provide for the recipients to resist the whipping by giving them an alternative career course?

Mr. Hogg: I remember articulating the same argument back in 1979 when the noble Lord St. John of Fawsley—or Mr. St. John-Stevas as he was then—introduced the Select Committee system. At that time, we articulated the argument that Back Benchers would have an independent career structure that would make them readier to resist the power of the Whip. I do not believe that that has really worked. As long as the Executive are Members of this place, the ambitions, fears and inhibitions of right hon. and hon. Members will always dilute their ability to speak their own mind and to do what they would do if they were to follow their consciences.

Mr. Rowe: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful and interesting point. Does he agree that there has been an enormous escalation in the practice of the popular media highlighting "disloyalty" when people stand up for their principles, and that that is a nonsensical undermining of democracy?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course, that gives the party Whip—although I make no personal observations about my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle—

Mr. Stephen Day: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Hogg: The party Whips have another instrument with which to chastise and coerce their Back Benchers. They can tell Back Benchers, "You will be portrayed as dividing this great, united party of ours", so my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is right.

Mr. Fisher: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's critique, but he seeks to place all the blame on the Government. Does he not feel that this Chamber shares some of the blame? It is perfectly within the powers of this Chamber to insist, by a vote, that it should elect members of Select Committees, rather than leaving that power to the Whips. Much of the power that has been


removed from this Chamber to the Executive has been with its agreement—or, at least, with its nodding and tacit consent.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If this House wanted to exercise its powers, it would be a truly sovereign and democratic institution. However, for a variety of reasons—some of which I have tried to identify—this House does not choose to employ the powers that we, as Members, could exercise if we were to vote according to our individual beliefs.
The point that I have been trying to make is that those defects are not merely theoretical; they are real and they distort the way in which business is carried out. I will give two examples from the Labour Government's period in office and, to be fair, will cite two examples from the previous Conservative Government's time in office. In relation to the Labour Government, if the House had voted in accordance with its actual wishes, rather than those of the Whips, the Government would not have put through a substantial portion of their welfare legislation. To take the other example—in respect of which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate—we should not have passed the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 with the possibility of the closed list system. Those measures would not have been passed.
During the period that the Conservative Government were in office, I do not believe that the legislation relating to the Maastricht treaty would have been approved by this House—certainly not without a referendum clause—had the House spoken in accordance with its wishes. Furthermore, the community charge legislation would not have passed if the House had spoken according to its wishes. We should acknowledge those facts.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have anticipated my question and I shall be interested to hear his answer. Would not that strict party control exercised by the Whips be a feature of an elected second Chamber, even one that did not have an Executive element, bearing in mind the fact that the need for enforcing party discipline and unity would still be an argument that could be deployed?

Mr. Hogg: I shall develop that point later, but will give a brief answer now. There might be a degree of such control, but, because there would not be the same scope for ambition, the influence that the Whips could exercise in an elected second Chamber would be much less.
I have focused on the big issues, but we need to keep in mind that this defect also extends to the small issues—the detail of Bills. The grip that the Whips maintain on their parties is as great in Committee as it is in the Chamber. What happens in Committee in relation to the detail of legislation is frequently as important as what happens during the major debates on policy or on Second Reading.
To develop that point further, we need to understand that there is nothing in our constitution that guarantees minority rights. Provided that the Government of the day retain their control over members of their parliamentary party, they can do much as they please. Minority rights

are not entrenched under our system—although they are entrenched in many other systems—and I regard that as a serious defect in the way in which we conduct our affairs.

Mr. Grieve: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if anything, minority rights are threatened even more nowadays, because of the growth of the belief that when the people have spoken through the mandate of an election, any opposition to that expressed wish becomes improper in some way?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, about which I make two comments. First, I have always regarded the manifesto doctrine as complete rubbish. The fact that detailed policy propositions may be set out in a manifesto does not give the Government a blank cheque to carry out those policies. Truth to tell, only a tiny proportion of Members of Parliament will read their party's manifesto—far less the electorate as a whole. The manifesto doctrine is rubbish.
Secondly, I believe that minorities have rights that they are entitled to assert even against majorities. All Governments and Members of this House should realise that they have a limited right to effect change.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend for interrupting him. He mentioned his views on the principle behind the manifesto doctrine. Might not the same be said for the votes taken in this House at 10 o'clock? A huge proportion of Members do not listen to the debates, but simply go into the Lobby to which they are directed. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is at least a possibility—although it is no more than that—that the Human Rights Act 1998 may entrench the rights of minorities in a way that has not previously been the case?

Mr. Hogg: I was just coming to the second proposition that my hon. and learned Friend makes, but his first reinforces my basic point, which is that the House of Commons is not an effective defender of rights, and nor does it provide an effective method of holding Governments to account. Let us not get personal—we should all admit to flocking in at 10 o'clock and asking a Whip which way we should vote, even though that is not a proper way in which to discharge our functions.
I said that there were one or two external controls, and my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned one: the European convention on human rights. The concept of a Bill of Rights is one way in which to entrench rights; I am broadly in favour of incorporating the European convention into domestic law and glad that that has happened. Although that gives judges a policy-making role, they have had such a role ever since we first subscribed to the convention. The question is whether they should be based in the UK or in Strasbourg; my preference is that they should be UK-based, subject to appeal. That is a constraint of which I am broadly in favour. A second lies in our membership of the EU, which carries both rights and obligations, and I am bound to say that I am less enthusiastic for that model of control, because the democratic underpinning is far less good than it ought to be.
That brings me to my main point. I believe that we ought to create a bicameral system in which the second Chamber has powers that are very similar to those of this


House. Let me be candid: my objective is to create in the second Chamber an elected body that has a genuine ability to constrain and restrict the power of the Executive. I want to create a body or forum in which there will be more effective scrutiny of the detail of legislation than is exercised in this place. Finally, I want the second Chamber to provide effective entrenchment of minority rights.
To create a second Chamber with such extensive powers, one must confer legitimacy on it, and that takes me back to my intervention on the hon. Member for Stoke–on–Trent, Central, with which he was good enough to agree. Where Parliaments and representative bodies are involved, the only legitimacy that is now accorded respect is that which stems from election. Therefore, I am in favour of a second Chamber that is elected either wholly or to a very large extent, certainly by direct franchise.
Right hon. and hon. Members have expressed criticism of such a system and I have some sympathy with their views. I agree that we must not create a facsimile of the House of Commons in the other place—that would be a tragedy. Therefore, those right hon. and hon. Members who say that the Executive should not be represented in the other place are absolutely right. Ministers from this place can go to the other place to answer questions and participate in debates there, but we want to remove the ministerial career structure from that place. To answer the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), I think that such an arrangement would diminish the Whips' control in the other place.
I also want different electoral arrangements. To the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), I say that I am not hostile to the use of proportional representation in respect of the other place, even though I am wholly opposed to its use in respect of the House of Commons. I am sorry that I cannot carry my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) with me on that point. I should also like elections to the second Chamber to be staged: that is, a rolling programme with one third of Members subject to election at a time.

Mr. Garnier: The problem with using proportional representation or some other form of election for the other place is that it would confer a different degree of legitimacy. Although I agree with much of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument, if we had different systems of election for each House, I fear that the other place would be criticised by Members of the House of Commons as lacking the quality of legitimacy that we have.

Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that I agree with that criticism. The reason why I am opposed to PR being used in elections to this place is not that it confers less political legitimacy on the outcome, but that it makes good government almost impossible. That is a different problem altogether. Because PR can result in an equally representative—perhaps more representative—body, it would not be open to Members of this place, who are elected by first past the post, to say that those who were elected by PR are less representative. I do not want PR here, but not because it would create a less representative body.
My final point relates to the risk of creating the potential for deadlock. There is a danger of deadlock, but it is perfectly possible to create anti-deadlock

mechanisms. The exact mechanism, its shape and weighting, depends on the balance one wishes to strike between the two Houses. However, one would have to bear in mind the fact that we are talking about having two elected Chambers—two democratic Chambers; having recognised that, one begins to realise that those who assert the primacy of this House have not faced up to the fact that there would be another House of equal respectability. Such a House is what I want to create.
I cannot say that I am optimistic. I believe that what will emerge from the process is a model that does not satisfy the aspirations of those of us who want there to be a second Chamber with greatly enhanced powers and, therefore, one that is wholly or largely elected. However, if that is what emerges, we will have missed a great opportunity, so we should not be backward about asserting our beliefs, even though people will say that I am advocating the removal of powers from the House of Commons. In fact, if my analysis is correct and acted on, it would diminish the powers of the Executive and, in the words of the great and historic resolution passed by this House, the power of the Executive
has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate and to follow so many distinguished and erudite right hon. and hon. Members who have long experience of constitutional matters. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), other than with his distaste for Governments with large majorities—it is harder for one whose constituency majority is only 1,500 to accept that view. That matter aside, there was merit in his somewhat pessimistic assessment of the whole question of House of Lords reform.
We have to consider composition. In an ideal world, we would start with powers and then move on to composition, but each form of composition has a different effect on the outcome. There are three forms of composition on offer: election, appointment and the hybrid form, one possible manifestation of which was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who dipped his toe into functionalism.
The idea of the second Chamber being elected is gathering a head of steam, especially among the Opposition, but it has inherent problems which can be seen in countries with a history that is somewhat similar to our own. One hundred and thirty years ago, the United States Senate was a shadow of its current self: all the action after the American civil war was led by the House of Representatives, which overshadowed the Senate at that time.
The balance of power between those two bodies has changed since then, as a consequence of the change from Senators being indirectly elected to their being directly elected. Until about 1914, they had been elected from the state assemblies; thereafter, the American Senate had the ability to take to itself power and authority that it had not had before. If we go down the route of having a directly elected upper House, we should be aware that such a House will take to itself powers additional to those that we give it, because that is what constitutional bodies always do if they believe that they have the authority to do so.
If we take that approach, the question then is what method of election we adopt. We perhaps saw the House of Lords at its worst on the question of the European elections. Five or six times it ping-ponged back to this House the European elections legislation because, in the first place, it did not approve of any form of proportional representation. Once it had accepted proportional representation, the argument was about whether the list should be open or closed. We ended up with a closed list which, I suspect, has a very small minority of support in this House and in the House of Lords. When the House of Lords had the opportunity, because of the time pressure on the European elections legislation, it funked it and did not act as a check or barrier to the power of the Executive.
If we adopt a system of proportional representation for the upper Chamber and hold the elections at different times from those for this House, we will move almost inevitably into gridlock because both Houses will try to assert their power. I understand why those of a Conservative disposition would not be averse to gridlock. I do not mean to be offensive when I say that it has always been the position of the Conservatives, at least until the past 20 years, to avoid undue change.
Historically, Conservatives have been supporters of upper Houses or second Chambers, and radicals have normally been opposed to them. That is because radicals wish to move matters along and Conservatives wish to slow everything down or wish for nothing to change at all. If that is still the case, support for a second Chamber is to be anticipated on the right of politics but is more surprising on the left. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) claimed that more powers should be given to an upper House, and that fits logically with the gridlock approach to democracy.
Why are we considering an upper House at all? It is because we want to put a check on the Executive and on democracy itself.

Mr. Maclennan: I would not favour gridlock, and I take seriously the criticism the hon. Gentleman makes. Does he agree, however, that, on occasions, gridlock might reflect the public wish, as in the case of the poll tax? Gridlock can be dissolved by public opinion when an election is imminent. Those who are sustaining opposition to the Executive can be punished at the polls if they do so unreasonably.

Mr. Hurst: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's view, but I submit that the disadvantages of gridlock outweigh the protection he suggests. He mentioned the poll tax, but the party that introduced that tax was not punished at the polls subsequently. It was returned to office.
In other countries, such as Australia, which has an upper House, a double dissolution is the most common way to resolve disputes between the two Houses. Often, the dispute is not resolved, because one House is elected on a variation of our electoral system and the other by proportional representation. The upper House seldom has an overall majority.
If we have an elected upper House, we will let a genie out of a bottle and people will rue the fact that they cannot put it back in.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my hon. Friend agree that gridlock could be avoided if one had sufficiently strong Parliament Acts?

Mr. Hurst: I have, I hope, learned the phraseology of the House in the time that I have been here, so I tell my hon. Friend that I shall come to that point later in my speech.
The other option is an appointed upper House, which runs into the barrage set up by the word "patronage". Sometimes we appear to live in a squeaky-clean intellectual world in which we believe that policies can operate entirely without patronage, party Whips, party loyalty or any other aspects of the glue that makes effective government possible. The argument against an appointed Chamber is that it would lead to patronage. How would its members be appointed fairly? Would the Prime Minister be completely unbiased, and would the Leader of the Opposition put forward the best names available? Would a commission be impartial? Who is to appoint the impartial commission? All those problems argue against an entirely appointed upper House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster proposed a notion that was interesting both historically and intellectually. He suggested a combination or hybrid system. He said that the elected system had defects and the appointed system had defects and that we should therefore have a combination of the two. However, that is like saying that if one has one bad egg and adds another to it, one somehow achieves a good egg. In my submission, one achieves a doubly bad egg, unless my biology is in error. Any argument against an elected system or an appointed system applies twofold to any hybrid or combined system. However, it is only by going outside an elected system that we could bring in to the House the experts, the wise men, the Solomons of our time who would deliberate and hold back from foolishness, and ensure that we did not destroy the prospects for the future of this nation.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the model whereby some Lords sit ex officio, as the bishops do, is useful? They have authority because of the office they hold, and that is not resented. It also serves a useful function in this House by sparing us the deliberations of the clergy of the established Church.

Mr. Hurst: That is an interesting point. It was well said by Bagehot that if we had an ideal House of Commons, it is certain that we should not need a higher Chamber. To paraphrase more modern authors, as Simon and Garfunkel said in "Mrs. Robinson":
Every way you look at it you lose".
We would lose with an elected upper House, with an appointed upper House and with a hybrid upper House.
Why are we going through such heated discussion and intellectual strain to achieve an upper House? It is because we believe that we are failing in two ways. We are failing to operate the House of Commons effectively and also failing to control the Executive. That is why we endlessly


discuss what to do about the upper House. We should not put off the day when we consider the real problems before us—this House and control of the Executive—but we delude ourselves by thinking that we can solve the problem by creating a strange new upper House.

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we reform the upper Chamber correctly, it will provide a powerful incentive for the reform of this House?

Mr. Hurst: If we attempt to reform the upper House, we will put off till doomsday any consideration of the reform of this Chamber or any effective controls on the Executive. I was pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned the words of Dunning about the powers of the Executive increasing and needing to be diminished. I remember reading that in an A-level history examination in 1963—not in a contemporary question, but in one that related to the 18th century. That problem has been with the House for centuries and, until we can tackle it within this place, it will continue.

Mr. Letwin: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's observations about the need to check the Executive within the House, which has been a theme common to many speeches this afternoon. Is he optimistic that enough can be done in this place—without diluting the Government's ability to govern—to cure the problem in the absence of an effective second Chamber?

Mr. Hurst: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has ascertained where my remarks are leading: we do not need a second Chamber. We have believed throughout modern times that we needed a second Chamber, but the majority of democracies do not have one. It is argued that single Chambers work only in small democracies. There are normally second Chambers in federal situations and, despite what Opposition Members might say, we are not yet in that situation.
If we had single-Chamber government, we could apply our minds to reforming the problems in this place. As a comparatively new Member of Parliament, one of the main problems seems to me to be that, when a Bill leaves the Floor of the House and goes into Committee, the party system operates as sternly in Committee as in this place. A solution might be to have a single Chamber—the Lords within the Commons, if I may put it that way—and not to allow party majorities to operate in the Committee system. It could draw instead upon a pool of independent experts and those who are learned in particular subjects.
Matters could be debated in a non-partisan manner in Committee, and those involved could seek to improve rather than destroy the Bill. The Government of the day might then accept or reject amendments to the Bill on Report without the rancour of partisanship. If we approach the matter in that way, we might make real progress towards increasing the power of the House rather than chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of second-Chamber reform.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have been astonished by the frequent references to the reform of this place—I thought we were perfect, and popularly

perceived to be so. The serious question is: would any Government seek a reform of this place that made it a more effective brake on the Government? That is the crux of the matter. I do not believe that, beyond tinkering with various procedural matters, any Government of any hue will take seriously any attempt to reform this place to make it a more effective check on Government.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who made an interesting and entertaining speech, advanced a rather strange proposition. He basically said that this place works so badly that, if we destroy the only mechanism—however frail—of checking our bad behaviour, we will be so frightened by our behaviour that we will be forced to reform ourselves. That is an interesting and an ingenious argument, but it did not carry me altogether.
I think that we have accepted rather too readily the proposition that the primary role of the House is the creation and scrutiny of legislation. Apart from anything else, I think we legislate far too much, and I wonder what proportion of each legislative programme is spent making good the mistakes of previous programmes rather than introducing new legislation. I believe the Government spend far too much time worrying about announcing their business and organising their timetable, rather than ensuring that a smaller body of legislation is scrutinised properly so that it does not have to be repealed two legislative programmes down the track.
I think that our job is also to call the Executive to account for the way in which they perform their functions. Above all, my constituents want me to chase the Government about the way in which they and their agencies deliver on policies and on legislation that has been passed. Most of my correspondents and my constituents are concerned about oppressiveness, inefficiency, bureaucratic delay and all the other elements of a creaking administrative system for which Ministers are responsible. I am not sure that we have effective mechanisms in this place to address those problems, but that is as much a part of the House's role as passing legislation.
I think also that our purpose—this is manifestly borne out by the interest of the media, which is notably lacking in most of what we do—is to be seen to debate the great issues of the day. It does not matter very much whether there is a vote at the end of a debate. This place is still seen to be the centre of national debate on issues such as genetically modified food, euthanasia or any other subject that seriously exercises the public. Indeed, it is one of the few areas of debate in this place that the media take the trouble to cover.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend believe his concerns will be exacerbated by the removal of many debates from this Chamber to the Grand Committee Room? Will those debates be reported more widely than those that take place in this Chamber?

Mr. Rowe: It will be a shame if, in the mad rush to pass legislation through this place, debates that are central to the national interest are removed from this Chamber. I would rather see the legislative programme trimmed so that we may hold the main debates of our time in the House. For example, the media have been covering our debates on Kosovo—an area where the House has virtually no power—with meticulous care. In fact,


much of the action has taken place under prerogative power in which the House has no role. However, our debates have been covered carefully.
I share the Mackay commission's view that if we are to have a second Chamber—I believe that we should—it must have its own programme. The commission is right about that. It is ridiculous that two Chambers that share the same building should engage in so little joint action. The two Chambers should co-operate much more when the new second Chamber is created. I agree with those who argue that the second Chamber should not include representatives of the Executive.
We must explore whether the traditional pattern of Chamber service is the only way to go. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) painted an all too accurate picture of the disincentives to serving in this place, and it seems to me that those disincentives will operate with almost equal force in the second Chamber. I reckon that I am wholly unemployable in the outside world after 16 years in this place—I may have been unemployable when I escaped here in the first place, but that is certainly the case now. The same will be true of people who have served 15 years or so in the other place, so we need to think of ways to attract the lively specialists on whose expertise we all seem to be anxious to rely.
I wonder whether we could acknowledge how Members behave now and allow those who bring especial expertise mainly to attend the debates in which they can contribute that expertise. The practical difficulty with that would be voting. If there is an insistence, as there is in this place, that votes take place frequently, people who have been appointed because they are experts in social services or heavy engineering will feel inhibited about taking the job. If they could take part only in the debates to which they could make a specialist contribution, they might be delighted to do so, but if they had to turn out for regular votes, they might be reluctant to take the job. We need to examine that practical problem and to consider changes to the procedures for voting in the second Chamber.
I wonder whether there could be a much closer link between the second Chamber and the European Parliament. One of the most lamentable features of our parliamentary process is the fact that we have an almost entirely separate team with their own agenda and view of life who nominally represent us but have little contact with us. There is no time for that contact here, and our procedures do not make it easy to establish contact, but there is no reason why, in a revised second Chamber, it should not be possible, for example, for Members of the European Parliament to have a right of audience or to attend by invitation.
I remember vividly the meeting at which the Conservative party hierarchy decided that we would not allow Members of the European Parliament even to have a room at 32 Smith square because they were such undesirable, grossly overpaid characters and we were jealous of them and did not want them. That did enormous damage to the Conservative party because the divide between the Conservative team in the European Parliament and the rest of the party was unnecessarily exacerbated, and it led to a number of troubles on which I shall not dwell.
On the composition of the second Chamber, I am entirely in favour of direct elections. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) that we must have a different franchise and that the Members should be elected for a different period. The Mackay commission suggested multi-Member constituencies for at least part of the Chamber's constitution. That is a possible method, but we should have direct election of one sort or another. Like the American Senate, the second Chamber should be elected for a different period and in a different election year.
It is nonsense to suggest that direct elections give institutions equal authority. Authority is defined by the rules. For example, nobody believes that local authorities, which are directly elected, have power or influence equal to that of this place, because the powers of local authorities are defined by this place. If we define the powers of the second Chamber, there is no reason why we should create a Frankenstein's monster that will gobble us up sooner or later.
Finally, we should be much more imaginative and discover new ways of finding and electing the Members of the second Chamber. I shall give one example, which relates to an experiment so tentative that I mention it with care. The embryo United Kingdom youth Parliament is experimenting with the idea of having virtual members. Young people can be given a form of ID and can click onto the website and take part in debates. That may develop into a pool of young people whom one could not only ask for ideas about what might be on the agenda of a youth Parliament, but use as a source of potential candidates.
I understand that that is a radical suggestion, and I am aware that it may not work, but we are moving into a world in which there is an enormous amount of electronic interaction and in which information and choice are offered electronically. It might be worth at least considering the harnessing of that technology to the second Chamber because it is such a hassle to introduce even simple communication methods into this building of which we are all so fond and, rightly, proud—one must find an electricity socket and get someone to bring a slide projector or whatever one needs—that we are the laughing stock of the general public. The revised second Chamber might give us an opportunity at least to experiment with new devices.

Dr. Tony Wright: I am about to make some high-minded and non-partisan points, so I shall begin with a thoroughly partisan point. The process of reforming the second Chamber—which is entirely to be welcomed, and I applaud the way in which the Government are making progress—has caused us to forget why we are doing it. The reason is that we have a second Chamber that, in its present form, is entirely indefensible.
There are people who doubt whether stage 2 will ever happen. We have heard hon. Members say with some authority that the transitional stage may become the final stage, which is a genuine fear. Nevertheless, we must not think of the current second Chamber as a faded antique that we simply have to touch up. It is fundamentally unsatisfactory. The idea that, at the end of this century, we still have a second Chamber composed in large part of an hereditary element is an outrage. We must tell ourselves that throughout today's rather high-minded discussion.
To remind myself and other hon. Members of that, I turned to the history of the other place, which I shall take a moment to recount. It involves the history of the Conservative and Liberal parties early in the century when they were merrily selling places in the upper Chamber. I shall give two examples before I move on to the high-minded part of my speech. The Bonar Law papers provide conclusive proof that honours were bartered for subscriptions to party funds in the early part of the century. When Bonar Law became Leader of the Conservative Opposition in 1911, he received a memo—

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Wright: Not until I have made my point. Bonar Law received a memo from the party manager, Arthur Steel-Maitland, on the state of the party's organisation and finances. The document reported that the party had a nest egg of £300,000 and that
a year's peerages are hypothecated".
Steel-Maitland went on to say that he hoped for an income of between £120,000 and £140,000 by the end of 1913.

Mr. Grieve: I am trying gently to encourage the hon. Gentleman to move on to the high-minded bit by reminding him that, although he is talking about the hereditary system of peerage at that time, there is a great deal of evidence that similar things have been happening under the appointed system of peers. I therefore fail to understand how he sees anything more legitimate about the appointed system.

Dr. Wright: I am interested in that intervention. If any hon. Member does not find the sale of peerages the most outrageous thing concerning the second Chamber this century, they do not quite understand what has been happening in that institution or, indeed, our political system. I shall, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman the second bit of low-mindedness, which refers to the Liberal party and Lloyd George's sale of the century: the 1922 birthday honours.
I refer particularly to the case of Sir Joseph Robinson, who was to be elevated to the peerage. It was discovered that he had been engaged in all kinds of shady business dealings in South Africa. Indeed, the South African Supreme Court asked him to repay £500,000 as a result. That caused some consternation; there was a debate in the House of Lords in which it was discussed how on earth a man of such a disreputable character could have been offered a peerage. It was announced in a further debate that Sir Joseph had written to the Prime Minister asking to be allowed to decline the peerage offered to him.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Wright: Just a second.
Lloyd George's reply to Sir Joseph, accepting his decision to refuse a peerage, was delivered to Robinson at the Savoy hotel by an official of the National Liberal party. Sir Joseph misunderstood the message, reached for his cheque book and asked, "How much more?" I am afraid that that is the history of the institution in the early part of this century; that is the outrage and that is the motivation for ensuring its reform.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for

giving way, he is dredging up selective history—it is extremely selective—in order to advance a case about which nobody in this House is arguing. Nobody is arguing for the sale of peerages. The House of Lords Bill has gone through this House and to another place. We are not seeking to defend the automatic right of hereditary peers. The hon. Gentleman is walking on extremely thin ice because, not long ago, his own party gave peerages to a range of slightly odd characters, many of whom are on record as fairly major donors to it. What credit is he bringing on anybody by dredging up this rubbish?

Dr. Wright: I can understand why such issues should be unsettling, but it is important that we get the history right. Only the Labour party has not been involved in the sale of peerages. That is simply the case. If we want to bring the story slightly up to date—

Mr.Tyrie: rose—

Dr. Wright: I shall finish answering the previous intervention. It was only in the previous general election campaign that the Conservative party defended the rights of hereditary peerages and argued for the status quo. We may argue about history and how right it is to refer to it when talking of reform, but the fact nevertheless remains that the Conservative party was so wrong on so much so recently concerning this issue that it is difficult to take it entirely seriously when it argues for the positions for which it seems to be arguing—although not terribly coherently.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman's party has been successful only because it has adopted so many Conservative party policies. If our policies were so wrong, why has his party been so successful?

Dr. Wright: I confine myself to the point at issue—[Interruption.] It is a rather important point at issue. I do not want to be detained by it, but the fact is that the Conservative party went into the election defending the hereditary peerage and opposing reform of the House of Lords, just as it opposed a freedom of information Act, devolution and a human rights Act—all things that are making our political system more democratic and decentralised.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Wright: In order that I may endeavour to find some common ground, I would rather move on and give way later. Perhaps I should not have stirred things up, but there it is.
It is rare that we have an opportunity to think freshly about a political institution. We make modest reforms here and there, but, on this occasion, we are being asked to think freshly about what we want to do with a central institution of the political system. We can do so only if we are fairly clear about the issue—what we think are the difficulties and the problems to which a reformed institution might be the answer. Unless we do that, we shall get into all kinds of difficulties.
It is possible to invent a second Chamber that might be able to do all kinds of interesting things and might be composed in all kinds of interesting ways. We might


look around the world at other second Chambers and borrow this from there and that from here. In all sorts of ways, that would be mistaken because second Chambers are usually responses to particular situations in particular political systems. Sometimes, they are a way of trying to heal religious or regional differences, or of bringing the country together. We must be clear about the central problem; if we do not know what it is, we shall not know what reform might be the solution to it.
I agree very much with those who say that the central problem is that of an Executive who have too much power, and that the agencies and institutions that are there to check have too little. There is nothing original in saying that. It has been the standard critique of our political system for as long as I can remember. Twenty years ago, Lord Hailsham famously described our system as an elective dictatorship. He was right then; the analysis is true now.
Parties wax and wane on the issue depending on whether they are in government or in opposition. As we have seen in this debate, a party in opposition is terribly interested in issues of scrutiny and accountability—all things in which they had no interest when in government. Similarly, a party in government rapidly loses interest in issues of scrutiny and accountability in which it had great interest in opposition. I am afraid that that is one of the truisms of political life.
The central fact nevertheless remains that we have a peculiar system of what is often called strong government—a Government who have concentrated Executive power. Because we do not have a separation of powers, and because the Executive are drawn from the dominant party in the House of Commons, if we are not careful, we almost necessarily have a supine House of Commons. Necessarily, the House of Commons is controlled by the Executive.
That is our system and I see no immediate prospect of changing it. Such facets are characteristics of a system of strong government. I simply argue that if that is our system, and if we want it to continue, we must at least balance it with a system of strong accountability. We must have strong government on the one hand, because that gives coherence, direction and some crude political accountability. However, it will work satisfactorily and meet the tests of scrutiny and accountability only if it is matched by strong accountability. If this House of Commons cannot provide that by itself, it must be provided in a range of other ways, of which this House will be part.
We are creating a range of mechanisms that are beginning to help in achieving those objectives. Devolution helps to achieve them, by beginning to decentralise power. The Human Rights Act 1998 helps to achieve them, by beginning to give basic rights to citizens and against the Executive. I hope that a freedom of information Act also will help, by checking the Executive and making them less secretive. However, a reformed second Chamber also can help, by doing the general job of recognising that we have a system of strong Executive power that is tolerable only if it is always matched by institutions of strong accountability.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the interesting point on the Human Rights

Act 1998—the introduction of which, as he may be aware, I broadly supported. What most worries me is that the Government, having passed that Act, are now chickening out in implementing it. Does that not bring us back to the point, which he himself made—that the longer Governments are in power, the more reluctant they are to initiate change? Therefore, on the broad issue of House of Lords reform, Opposition Members are anxious that, the further into this Parliament we go, the more apparent it is becoming that removing the hereditary principle is only an opportunity to substitute a purely appointed principle, which is equally bad.

Dr. Wright: I had planned on dealing with that point in a moment. For the moment, however, in my search for non-partisanship on the issue, I shall not be distracted from the argument that I was trying to develop.
If it is true that we need institutions of strong accountability, we shall have to create a second Chamber that—to put it in a nutshell—is neither a rival nor a replica of the first one. There is no question but that we have a primary Chamber in the House of Commons, and that is as it should be. This is the primary Chamber, which initiates, directs and governs. However, the virtues of having a primary, Executive-dominated Chamber are realised only if that Chamber is matched by other institutions that hold it to account. That is the real opportunity in reform of the second Chamber.
There is no great need to revisit the powers of a second Chamber. As other hon. Members have already said—I shall not go over the same ground—a reformed second Chamber will be more confident in using its powers. That will be the major change. A reformed second Chamber will have to be taken seriously, and conventions currently inhibiting the use of the powers of the unreformed second Chamber will not be sustainable. Those conventions will go, and the second Chamber will do the things that it should be doing.
In constitutional matters, however, there is a case for saying that the second Chamber should have a more developed role. We already give it a specific role in dealing with any attempt to extend the life of a Parliament; we already use it to provide that basic constitutional protection. However, I should go further and say that, if this place wants to do anything that offends basic constitutional rights—for example, if it were to seek systematically to erode the rights of Opposition—the second Chamber should act as a constitutional backstop. In any consequent conflict, a referendum could perhaps decide the issue. Nevertheless, I agree with those who have said that, in dealing with more usual situations, it might be more useful to develop routine anti-gridlock mechanisms.
We have to be able—having had a discussion about powers and activities—to address the underlying issue of legitimacy. People may ask of the second Chamber, "Who are these people? Why should they be taken seriously, listened to or be able to exercise a delaying power?" Unless we can answer that question in terms of legitimacy, ultimately, the second Chamber will be ineffective. Any fundamental reform will have to grapple with that fundamental point.
We shall, therefore, have to balance a range of often competing interests and issues, some of which have already been mentioned in the debate. We need to have


sufficient election to provide sufficient legitimacy—without which we shall not be able to answer the question of who those people in the second Chamber are. Nevertheless, I am absolutely clear that if we had simply a purely elective system, producing in the House of Lords a clone of the House of Commons, we shall only make the position worse rather than better.
I am equally clear that a party nominee, closed list system is substantially no different from a system of direct appointments. The closed list system may seem better and feel more legitimate, but—as the European elections show—that may not necessarily be so.
In thinking about those issues, I started by being rather keen on indirect election. Many years ago, I was very keen on ideas of functional representation—which, for much of this century, was a sub-current in British thought on those issues. I am not sure whether it was Sidney Webb or Winston Churchill who once talked about a "house of industry". Nevertheless, many people have explored the idea of trying to establish a system of functional representation alongside our system of direct representation.
The problem is that it is fiendishly difficult to work out how to create such a system. Therefore, in my own mind, reluctantly, I have had to move away from some of those fancy schemes of indirect and functional election, as I simply could not see how they would work in practice.
My conclusion—it is not an original one, but I reached it after trying to think my way through the issues—is that it would make sense to try to have the best of both worlds, and not the worse of two bad eggs. We want the merits of election without the demerits of total election, and we want the merits of appointment without the demerits of total appointment. Such a system necessarily entails an exploration of a mixed system that has to be—I phrase this carefully—predominantly elected, so that it must be taken seriously and passes the test of basic legitimacy. Beyond that, we need sufficient appointment to guarantee independence and expertise.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am following with great interest my hon. Friend's cogent points. However, is he not really advocating a system in which all Members of the second Chamber are legitimate, but in which some are more legitimate than others?

Dr. Wright: No. I think that we create legitimacy in different ways. We do not, for example, elect magistrates or juries. We have different ways of finding people to serve in public office. The challenge of finding a mixed system demands that we be reasonably imaginative and inventive.
We should not assume that one may have only election or only appointment—which is how the argument usually begins. I think that we can have not only the merits of election—thereby creating a predominantly elected House to reflect the party element of this place, and ensuring the legitimacy of election—but sufficient nomination to ensure that we create the non-party and independent element, and the range of expertise that we know that a second Chamber needs if it is not simply to be a replica of the House of Commons. That is the essence of the position at which I have arrived.
I shall detain the House only briefly with some further thoughts, some of which have already been expressed. If my argument is right, there is a case for not having

Ministers in a second Chamber. If we are serious about strong accountability, the lures of office and patronage should be dispensed with. The Executive have grown large over the years and are well able to attend upon a second Chamber, too.
We need to attend to the problems of the bishops and the Law Lords. I hope that those issues will not be fudged because they are serious ones. The present position is unsatisfactory and now is the time to remedy it. The position of the Lord Chancellor is unsustainable. I speak as a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Lord Chancellor. Even in a system that loves anomalies, his position is an anomaly too far. Reform of the House of Lords should be the moment when we attend to that.
It is no small matter to find our way through in a manner that commands as much consensus and assent as possible. Considering the history of attempts to reform the second Chamber, we shall need enormous political will and substantial consensus to achieve it. The history of failed attempts to reform the House of Lords shows that we know how not to do it. We have spent much of the 20th century failing to reform the second Chamber. We need a combination of political will and broad consensus. I do not doubt the Government's political will to see the matter through. The challenge for all of us across the House is whether we have the imagination and determination to produce a solution that can be implemented and will stand the test of time.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I agree with the last remarks of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), even if not with the first, but I shall not delay the House by taking issue with them, as I had momentarily intended to do.
I was walking across College green the other day when I bumped into a recently created life peer. I have known him for a long time and he has always been in favour of election to the second Chamber. He knew that I was, too. He buttonholed me and said, "Andrew, you are quite wrong about elections, you know. Quite wrong about having an elected House." "Why is that?" I asked. "Well," he replied, "if you are going to have any kind of proportional representation system, it means a list, which is basically an appointed system, because the party puts people on the list. That is no different, so I have decided I am against it." A large number of life peers are suddenly converting to the principle of nomination, having believed in the principle of election for many years. While the hereditaries were there they were safe, because there was a buffer zone between them and any threat of democracy, but they have twigged that the fresh air of democracy will be as much of a threat to life peers as the House of Lords Bill is to the hereditaries.
The life peers are a powerful vested interest—as powerful a vested interest as the hereditary peers have been over the years. The hereditaries are doing their best to cling on through the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment. It was only recently made public in an interview that Lord Cranborne negotiated a life peerage for himself as part of the deal to secure the amendment. He is in a Morton's fork. He will lose his right to sit because he sits by virtue of a writ of acceleration, so he is not ready even to be considered for election as part of the elected element in his scheme, but he does not have a life peerage either,


so he would have gone were it not for the special personal offer by the Prime Minister. That again shows the power of vested interests.
We, too, are a powerful vested interest.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Tyrie: In a moment.
This House has a monopoly of democratic authority. If we gave any elected authority to the second Chamber, we would have to share it.
The most important vested interest is the Executive. The Government have a huge vested interest in ensuring that no impediments are put in the way of pushing through legislation. That has been true of all Executives. I am not making an assault on this Government. It has been the case since the 1911 reform.
The power of vested interests on this issue is huge. We are talking about a large number of Members of Parliament, the Executive, life peers and hereditary peers. If we are to secure democratic reform, we must take the issue away from the vested interests and give it to the electorate to decide.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry to take my hon. Friend back, but he made a categorical statement about Lord Cranborne. I do not know whether he is right, but is he sure that he knows precisely what took place in a private alleged conversation between Lord Cranborne and the Prime Minister?

Mr. Tyrie: It is rather tedious to go through all this, but I have a transcript of Lord Cranborne's interview on "Breakfast with Frost". Since my hon. Friend has raised the issue, I suppose that I shall have to read it out. He said:
Very kindly, the Government made it clear that … I could stay on if I wanted to as a life peer and I think it would be a bit churlish to turn that down—that general offer—particularly when there was a memorandum in the attached Bill making it clear they wanted to get rid of me. It is nice that they have changed their mind on that, too.
I think that that is a fairly clear answer to my hon. Friend.
This is our first debate on an issue that we should have debated two years ago—whether we want an upper House that is largely or wholly directly elected or one that is indirectly elected or wholly appointed. I have tried to answer that in various pieces that I have written over the past two years. It is worth going through some of the arguments briefly. Many of them have been mentioned today.
We need to be clear about whether we want a second Chamber. There are many unicameralists in the House, but most of them are not here today and their voice has scarcely been heard in the debate. I respect their views, but I find the arguments for bicameralism compelling. The Executive have become more powerful in recent decades. Many factors have contributed to that. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is no longer present, alluded to some of them, including the growth of the payroll vote, the professionalisation of Commons politics, the increase in the power of the Whips, the decline of the independent Back Bencher and the Executive's almost complete control over the Standing Orders of the House.
Our scrutiny of legislation is inadequate. After two years here, I am appalled by how shoddy legislation gets on to the statute book. I do not want to suggest that that has arisen only in the past two years. We also rely too much on the self-restraint of the Executive to protect our freedoms. A second Chamber can help to improve scrutiny and can act as a constitutional long stop.
Unicameralists may ask, "Why do we need the Lords to do those jobs? Why not reform the Commons?" That is a strong theoretical argument, but I do not think that such reforms will see the light of day. It is just possible that the Executive may be persuaded to support some improvement in the effectiveness of the Lords, but it is inconceivable that they will allow themselves to be restrained by radical reform of the Commons. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made a similar point, and I agree with him.

Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are grounds for a little more optimism than he is expressing in that, as an Opposition, we now have an opportunity to bind ourselves to reforms of this place which, when in government, we would be forced to implement?

Mr. Tyrie: That is a welcome suggestion, and I will now give greater thought to how the House of Commons might be reformed so that I can add to that debate.
As things stand, a second Chamber that works is the only way to tackle the problem of an over-mighty Executive.
Before moving on to consider election, we have to ask ourselves whether an interim House such as that being created by the first Bill or a largely appointed House—or something very similar—could do the job of scrutiny. I do not believe so. I believe that stage 1 reform will leave the lower House controlled by the Executive and the upper House effectively appointed by them. Abolishing the hereditaries achieves very little. It merely ensures that ancient patronage is replaced by modern patronage. What quality of scrutiny could we hope to obtain from that?
When it is created, it will be a Chamber of virtually no legitimacy. It will be no more than an interim rump, effectively on death row. If there is any trouble, the Government will be able to threaten to press the stage 2 button and eject as many as they want from the remainder of the Chamber.
I do not believe that tweaking a few dials such as creating an appointments committee, can create a modern appointed Chamber that will command widespread public respect. Without that public respect, no second Chamber would be able to exercise its powers. That is the central flaw in the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. He said that he wanted an increase in powers, but he did not want any increase in the moral authority of the Chamber in exercising them. He argued for some indirect election and some appointment. That would carry no more moral authority than we have now—in fact, it may carry less. By virtue merely of longevity, the existing House has come to serve some sort of constitutional role, although not a wholly adequate one. Once that has been removed—or even if there is only a moderate reform—what is left will have no moral authority.
The plain fact is that we live in a democratic age and only democracy can supply legitimacy. In the 21st century, parliamentary legitimacy must come largely from the ballot box. The public will find it increasingly unacceptable that parliamentarians should be created by a committee and given the power to legislate over them. Such a committee would amount to little more than a self-perpetuating oligarchy of the great and the good.
Sometimes I catch myself wondering why making that case should sound so radical. When I first raised this subject 18 months ago—shortly after I published my first article in The Times in favour of an elected House—an elderly colleague prodded me in the shoulder and said, "You're a republican." I can assure the House that I am not a republican and that I believe that it is entirely reasonable to envisage two parliamentary Chambers—directly elected or largely directly elected—while retaining the monarchy in its present form.
I believe that, only a few years ago, the vast majority of Labour party members, certainly those on the Front Bench, would have agreed that there should be more direct democracy in the House of Lords. Two years of being the Executive seems to have spawned a few doubts. After the election, there were still a few nods in the direction of democracy, but most of those have disappeared from Labour rhetoric.
I want to be slightly partisan in taking issue strongly with the Labour party's submission on reform of the House of Lords. It tells its own story. It is a profoundly anti-democratic document. It is replete with boxes of Labour party members' views—56 views are listed. I cannot find one Labour party member who is in favour of democracy—not one. On reading the boxes, one would believe that no one in Labour's grass roots believes in election. The press release that accompanied the document states:
any proposals … for an elected second Chamber"—
that is proposals from the Conservative party—are
naked opportunism masquerading as argument.
I find it appalling that the Labour party should produce a document suggesting that, if any Conservative such as myself stands here arguing for election—most of us have done it today—we should be accused of naked opportunism.
To read the Labour party document, one would believe that democracy was no way to achieve representation of the people. It calls for a "fully representative" Chamber of different interests and says that, above all, the House of Lords
should be representative of the people as a whole.
That representation should be achieved not by election but by appointment. It is an outrageous abuse of language to talk about a representative Chamber that is wholly undemocratic. It is quite absurd.

Mr. Forth: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is flattered that the Labour party should assume that Conservatives should be opportunistic in arguing for

democracy. That means that the Labour party accepts that we would be the gainers from any democratic process. I find that flattering and encouraging.

Mr. Tyrie: My right hon. Friend makes his point very well. I do not believe that two years, or even five or eight years, ago we would have seen a document such as this from the Labour party. It is deeply regrettable.

Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that one or two of the contributions from some Labour Members today mark an evolutionary stage in Labour party thought? The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was fascinated by the idea of corporatist elected Chamber, but we have a proposal for a corporatist Chamber that is not elected but appointed.

Mr. Tyrie: I agree.
I have got to know quite a large number of Labour Members who strongly support direct elections and I do not want to suggest that I am portraying all Labour Members in that light—far from it. I have had some fascinating conversations with people who follow pretty much the same line of argument as I, in favour of a largely or wholly directly elected Chamber.
What is more, although it is well concealed, the Labour party document rules out a second Chamber of mixed composition. It is worth bearing that in mind. I notice that one Labour Member is frowning, so I shall read the relevant passage. It says:
Its Members should have equal standing and there should be no opportunity for some to assert that they have a greater legitimacy than others.
That can only mean that those who might have legitimacy as a result of being elected cannot sit alongside those who have been appointed. I should be interested if the Minister could enlighten me on what that sentence means, if it is anything other than my interpretation.
So where do we stand? The Executive seem to be determined to prevent even a whiff of democracy in a reformed second Chamber. They have issued a Labour party document that calls for a wholly appointed House, but they do not have the courage to say that that is what the document means.
Does democracy stand any chance at all? I have to say that I am not very optimistic, and I share the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on that. I am sure that the royal commission was originally appointed with the idea of trying to kick the issue into the long grass. None the less, there are two sources of hope. One is the royal commission, which might surprise us by embracing democracy. The other is the existing House of Lords which might force commitments out of the Government with the passage of the stage 1 Bill.
On the royal commission, I am hoping for the best but fearing the worst. I am most impressed with the way in which its members are going about their work and I have already given evidence to them in writing and orally.
It is worth looking briefly at the composition of the royal commission. Some of its members have expressed quite clear views about an elected House. Only recently,


Lord Wakeham was reported as being sceptical about election. That was in The Times earlier this year. The Bishop of Oxford is completely against
even a partially elected element
in the second Chamber, as he made clear in a speech just under a year ago. I do not know the views of Sir Michael Wheeler Booth and Anthony King. Professor Oliver will almost certainly be in favour of some form of election.
I was also greatly heartened by some typically erudite remarks on the danger of appointed Houses from Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, when he quoted Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Gibbon wrote of Augustus:
The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost when the legislative power is nominated by the Executive".
Lord Butler went on to say:
I think it of the highest importance, in the absence of hereditary Peers, for the Royal Commission to find a way in which to select Members of your Lordships' House which does not depend solely on the patronage of the Executive".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 1998; Vol. 595, c. 42.]
Of course he has had the benefit of seeing successive Executives exercising that power of patronage and I wonder whether that had any influence on his decision to express that view. I am not overly optimistic about the royal commission, but I am not yet overly pessimistic.
The other hope—which is a genuine one and not to be wholly ignored—is the possibility that the House of Lords itself in its present form might yet force commitments from the Government for direct democracy. The hereditary peers can do a great deal before they depart. They can and should force through two important amendments. First, they could demand a referendum. The Lords could demand that, whatever the content of stage 2, the Government should be required to hold a referendum on their stage 2 proposals. They should be forced to let the people decide.
Many Opposition Members, including me, are not particularly attracted to referendums as a matter of principle, but the Government have always said that they believe in them. If the Government believe that the end point of this reform should be an appointed upper House, as the Labour party's submission so clearly elucidates, let them take that issue to the people. They have had referendums on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. Indeed, the White Paper refers to them glowingly. They have promised us referendums on economic and monetary union, and proportional representation.
In the local government White Paper, the Government promise to allow local authorities to hold referendums. If local authorities are to be allowed to hold referendums on whether to charge for home helps, what possible argument can the Government have against giving people a chance to decide something as fundamental as the reform of Parliament? Why cannot the people be given a chance to endorse the biggest change in the legislature this century?
The second amendment that the Lords could pass, which would add pressure for direct election, is a democratic one—a clause that would force the Government to bring forward a democratic stage 2 within, say, three years of the passage of the stage 1 Bill. That would open up the debate on democracy in the House and in the country in a big way.
If they did that, the 750 hereditary peers who are threatened by the stage 1 Bill would have an opportunity to be remembered not as a group who were clinging on to what the wider public consider unacceptable privileges in a democratic age, but as the people who brought the Executive to accept some constitutional restraint through election. They could be remembered as the people who checked the Government and reduced the risk that we could be left floundering with unicameralism in all but name, which is what the stage 1 Bill will bequeath us.
So we must hope for the best from their lordships and from the royal commission, but nobody should underestimate the power of the forces acting against democracy.
I believe that all of us who believe in an elected House and a largely or fully elected second Chamber should go out and try to make the case to a wider public. If the Executive were forced to go beyond Westminster, where they reign supreme, and talk to the people directly and explain that they intended to impose a largely or wholly appointed second Chamber, I have no doubt that they would soon produce proposals for a largely or wholly elected second Chamber.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the opportunity to participate in a thoughtful debate. I used to be sceptical about the passion that people brought to constitutional issues, but, having attended all the Committee sittings on the Bill and the two days of debate on Second Reading and participated in numerous discussions, I am becoming as obsessive about the issue as many others. It is a bit like becoming a train spotter late in life. I apologise to any of my constituents who happen to be train spotters.
It is an interesting debate and we should not underestimate the degree of historic change that we are witnessing. I should like to follow some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). We are ending the indefensible—people voting in one of our Houses of Parliament simply on the basis of the family into which they were born. We are ending the deformity of one of our Houses of Parliament, whereby its members come predominantly from one background and from one class with one set of beliefs and one set of values, and certainly support one political party. Many Opposition Members underestimate the power of that criticism of the current make-up of the House of Lords and the resentment that many people feel about it.
We are also rightly ending the party political abuse of the second Chamber. It is not about independence and detachment, but about the naked abuse of party political power. Two thirds of peers who take a party Whip in the House of Lords take the Conservative Whip. It is not about independence, scrutiny and a check on the Executive; it is and has been for centuries about the domination of the second Chamber by Conservative peers who have used their power to frustrate the will of democratically elected Labour Governments.
It is also about ending unrepresentativeness. We will have a debate about whether representativeness can be achieved solely by dint of election, but the current make-up of the House of Lords, with only 2.5 per cent. of its members being women and very few coming from ethnic minority backgrounds, presents a real problem. I


hope that the process that we have set in train will bring that to an end. It is worth underlining what we are doing. We are making a change that is long overdue and demonstrates the radical constitutional nature of the Government.
Before I talk in detail about my views on the form and composition of the new Chamber, it is worth dealing with some of the criticisms from Conservative Members. I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) say that the only positions in public life that are legitimate in the eyes of the public are those that result from direct election. Despite that sincerely held view, elected office is probably held in lower esteem than it has been at any time in recent memory. Therefore, it is at least worth considering that elections—although crucial to the make-up of the House of Commons—are not a panacea and are not appropriate to every nook and cranny of our constitutional settlement.
Some of the comments concerning the domination of this place by the Executive have been interesting. It is at least fair to say that those concerns were not voiced fully by Conservative Members of Parliament when their party was in power. Perhaps opposition releases people from the constraints of office and allows them to think more liberally.
I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham say that he did his duties as a Whip reluctantly—presumably, he told people that what he was doing was hurting him far more than them. Conservative Members would know better than I. However, there are concerns about domination by the Executive, but these come when one party has a large majority.
It is interesting to reflect that in three of the previous four general elections, one party has been elected with a majority of more than 100. It is in those circumstances that concerns about domination by the Executive come to the fore. We could resolve that by moving to a fairer voting system in which views are more fairly represented. However, there are different ways of dealing with the matter rather than by simply looking to elect a second Chamber. That is an answer to a question that is not being posed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton–under–Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and Conservative Members referred to the need for an alternative career structure within this House. That is a legitimate point which could deal with some of the concerns and tensions about domination by the Executive. However, I do not think that that is in any way dependent on reform of a second Chamber. Such ideas should be debated in any case.
I was interested in the claim made by a number of Conservative Members that, if the Government had simply brought forward the matter immediately after the general election and set up the royal commission at that stage, we could have had consensus on a reformed second Chamber. I hope that Conservative Members will forgive my scepticism about that. The debate about the nature of the House of Lords has been going on for 88 years. In the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in power, they never once proposed any detailed substantive reform for the House of Lords. I do not believe that, immediately following the general election, the Conservative party was serious about reform.
Conservative Members referred to the old chestnut that the Government should have brought forward the two-stage reform in one stage. That is a flawed argument. Over the past 88 years, Members of the Conservative party have claimed to support House of Lords reform, but said that they needed to see the endgame before they could commit themselves. The lack of agreement on the endgame is always what thwarts the process of reform, so I do not believe that that argument carries much credence.
I wish to refer to what kind of second Chamber we want, what its functions should be, how it should be established, what its role and procedures should be and its relationship to this House. The first point, alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), was whether we should have a second Chamber at all. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend and, on balance, I think that we need a second Chamber. We need within our constitutional settlement the possibility of asking the Government to think again.
We need a second Chamber to allow us to bring in the outside expertise that we do not necessarily get through bringing in professional politicians. We need a second Chamber in which it is possible to get greater detachment and independence from the party Whips—my apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) on the Front Bench—which would come from the second Chamber not having the vast majority of its Members relying for their living on their seat within that House. We certainly need a second Chamber to check abuse of power by the Executive.
Fundamentally—this concern was not addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree—we need a second Chamber as the ultimate guarantor to stop this House extending its term of office and postponing or abolishing elections.
Having dealt with these issues, the key question becomes one of the composition of the second Chamber. As someone who believes that the hereditary principle is an abomination—a view that I have held all my political life, as has my party—my instinctive reaction is that the answer should be direct elections. I hope now to set out my scepticism about that. The more I have become involved in the process, the greater my concern has been about direct elections to the second Chamber.
Those concerns stem from fact that I do not want the pre-eminence and superiority of this House to be challenged. It is in this House that the Government are accountable. It is in this House that we are the primary legislators. I do not want to undermine that. My concern with the current status of the House of Lords is that democratically elected Governments of the left have had their programmes obstructed by the undemocratic nature of the House of Lords.
I do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water and have a situation where democratically elected Governments of the left find that their legitimate mandate is thwarted by a second Chamber with an equally powerful electoral mandate which seeks to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of the Government as stated in their manifesto.

Mr. Grieve: Why should those aspirations be frustrated if there is an elected second Chamber? For instance, it might be that, two years into the elected period of the Government—when their mandate is becoming a


little stale—fresh Members of the upper House may say not that they wish to thwart that mandate, but that they disagree with some aspects of it and wish to make the Government think again by exercising to the full their powers under the Parliament Acts. What is the matter with that?

Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman underlines one of my key concerns: that elections to the other place would be conducted in mid term and people elected with a fresh mandate would argue, however small the proportion of elected Members, that their mandate was stronger than the Government's. We would be in danger of constant gridlock and the blocking of the legitimate mandate won by a Government in a general election.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The important element of the elections is that they would be rotational. If a third retired at each fixed-term House of Lords election, every Member would have legitimacy to cause reflection, but there would not be a mandate to block completely the will of the House of Commons, whose view must ultimately prevail. There would never be the snapshot of time that gives us in the House of Commons a mandate. Members of the other place would never be able to claim supremacy, although each Member would have legitimacy.

Mr. Rammell: We would need to think through the detail. Even if only a third were elected at any one time, clearly there would be others in that House under the same party label who would draw inspiration and encouragement from the electoral mandate that that third of the House got. I am not ruling out elections, perhaps for a proportion of Members, in all circumstances, but I am highlighting the fact that we need to think long and hard before automatically and instinctively responding to the inadequacies of the current make-up of the House of Lords by replacing it with an elected second Chamber. Before we knew where we were, we would have constitutional gridlock between the two Houses and the Government of the day, democratically elected with a significant mandate, would be unable to implement their programme beyond a period of two years.

Mr. Savidge: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, if the legislation says that the other House can only delay and cannot create gridlock, there is a perfectly good reason why a Government, who no longer have the support of the country should be made to think again.

Mr. Rammell: As we all know, the power of delay can be extremely significant and can affect the rest of a Government's legislative programme.
We also need to consider what is the role of a second Chamber in relation to this Chamber. This is where we hold the Government to account and where we are the primary instigators of legislation. Conservative Members may say that that is not the situation at present, and perhaps that is one of the problems with the current constitutional set-up, but I do not think that the right response is necessarily direct elections.
The role of the second Chamber should be tightly circumscribed. It should be a constitutional long stop, checking abuse and asking this place to think again. I am not convinced that to carry out that role one must necessarily be elected. We do not have a political culture and system in which every form of public office in every nook and cranny of our constitution is elected. We do not elect the dog catcher and we do not elect the judiciary. We should pause for thought.
Where is the enthusiasm for elections among the electorate? Perhaps my experience of the current European parliamentary election campaign has been unique, but I do not detect massive enthusiasm in the electorate for voting in local or European elections. If we add a further set of elections for a reformed second Chamber, we may find that people lose interest more and more and the turnout becomes lower, which would not advance anybody's cause.

Mr. Tyrie: I strongly agree that there is a risk of voter fatigue. Might not a way round that be to hold the elections at the same time as general elections?

Mr. Rammell: That is one possible solution and it would certainly deal with the concern about elections taking place in mid term. I am not certain that the answer to the current inadequacies of the House of Lords is to move to a wholesale system of direct elections.
The concerns that I am voicing have been expressed consistently every time the House has considered these issues. The Brice conference in 1917—18, set up by Lloyd George, rejected the option of a directly elected second Chamber on the ground that such a Chamber would inevitably become a rival to the House of Commons. That same concern was expressed when the 1945–51 Labour Government considered the issues in 1948, and in 1968, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was involved in the campaign, and people such as Michael Foot voiced their reservations from a very democratic perspective.
If the second Chamber is not to be wholly elected, what should its composition be? There are certainly strong arguments for reflecting the new constitutional settlement, with representatives from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, once it is established, and the English regions. Those people would be there to ensure that the overall constitutional settlement was taken into account.
There is also a strong case for Members of the European Parliament to be represented—[Interruption.] It is hardly surprising that that idea causes concern on the Conservative Benches. We should remember that 25 per cent. of our laws, and a much higher proportion of our business legislation, are derived from Europe, and we need to ensure that the interlocking between this place and the European Parliament, and our scrutiny of European legislation, take place on an informed basis. I do not think that anyone either in this House or the other place could say that that happens at the moment.

Mr. Grieve: I am wondering whether we shall hear anything from the hon. Gentleman about functional constituencies, which have been touted by the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). Those would be


corporatist—and is it not as corporatist to include, as of right, Members of the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, as it would be to include groups from industry, the law, the trade unions, the medical profession and so on?

Mr. Rammell: If that is done on a limited basis, I am not sure that, in view of the role that we are prescribing for the second Chamber, it would necessarily be a bad thing. There is at least a case to be made for a small element of representation from sectional interests, whether those be trade unionists, business people, doctors, teachers or whatever. We should explore the idea.
We also need to think long and hard about religious representation. Religious belief is part of the fabric of our society, and nobody suggests that the Church of England should be removed from the second Chamber. Britain today is a multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-religious society, and it is important that, without the position of the Church of England being undermined, those views are represented in the second Chamber.
Inevitably, within the kind of set-up that I envisage, there will be a process of appointment. That is not necessarily wrong, so long as appointments are made openly and fairly. The move towards an independent appointments commission is important, as is the fact that the Prime Minister has voluntarily given up some powers of patronage.
We need to go further. If there are to be processes of appointment, political parties need to be far more open about how people can come forward and seek nomination for peerages or places in the second Chamber. We should advertise to tell people how to go about seeking a nomination; publicising the process will be important.
The view that nomination is wrong in all circumstances is not shared by most people, especially if the job is not to be primarily one of initiating legislation. That is not a role that we seek for the second Chamber. Despite the fact that this is one of the criticisms most frequently made, nomination does not necessarily mean domination by the Executive, especially as the Government, rightly, have said that no one political party will have a majority in the second Chamber.
No evidence has been produced to suggest that nominated peers, once established, are supine creatures who automatically do the will of their political parties. Let us take some examples of recently created life peers from both parties. No one could plausibly argue that the likes of Lord Hattersley, Lord Shore and Lord Tebbit are there as tame party poodles to carry out the will of the political parties that appointed them.
Under the current system of appointment, once people are appointed they are not accountable to the person or party that put them there—a view that the history of life peers in the House of Lords supports.
I turn now to some of my concerns about the relationship between the two Chambers after the reforms have been instituted. I am worried that too much of what we do happens by convention, which does not always work. Reference has been made to the Salisbury convention, but, in debates on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the House of Lords sailed close to the wind in terms of challenging that convention. The Conservative peer Lord Kingsland said recently that abolition of hereditary peers was a solution to a problem that he did

not recognise. He considered that the Opposition would be entitled to think most carefully about whether the Salisbury convention applied to that Bill.
So, regardless of what 13.5 million people voted for in the Labour manifesto—the biggest Labour party landslide this century—Lord Kingsland considered that the gentlemen's agreement that is the Salisbury convention did not apply. I argue that the other gentlemen's agreements that police the relationship between this House and the House of Lords should not be allowed to continue.

Mr. Tyrie: The primary purpose of the Salisbury convention, as it was adopted after the war, was to deal with the disparity and imbalance between the two parties. The Government intend to impose parity in the interim House: does the hon. Gentleman think that the Salisbury convention should fall, or does he think that there should be a doctrine of the manifesto to trigger an arrangement similar to the convention and thus ensure that the Government always achieve what is contained in their manifesto?

Mr. Rammell: I think that there should be a doctrine of the manifesto. I was interested to hear a Conservative Member earlier pooh-poohing the notion that what appears in a manifesto is of any interest to politicians or the people who elect them. That attitude risks losing something that is unique about our democratic process. It is important that a party that gets a majority in this House has the opportunity to put into practice what is contained in its election manifesto. Even if there were parity between the parties in a reformed second Chamber, we would need firmer rules to ensure that what is in a manifesto can prevail.
I am also worried about the lack of an effective timetable in the other place. I am aware that if the second Chamber is allowed to have the power of delay, the Government cannot introduce a guillotine and thus remove that right. However, that power of delay must be circumscribed and confined, so that the rest of the legislative programme is not blocked, as has happened often in the past. In short, we need a new constitutional settlement to govern the relationship between this House and the House of Lords.
Finally, although there will be a debate about the form of the second Chamber and about how far elections should play a part in it, we need a second Chamber that really works in its limited role. The example of the Bill that became the War Crimes Act 1991 was mentioned earlier. That was a classic example of a proposal from the Government of the day that the second Chamber should have been able to challenge legitimately. It was a deeply emotive issue, but it was not a manifesto commitment and there were party divides on both sides of the House. One would have thought that the age and experience of Members of the second Chamber put them in a better position to form a judgment on the matter, but the second Chamber was flawed and seen to be illegitimate as a result of the involvement of hereditary peers, and the Government of the day simply brushed it aside by invoking the Parliament Acts.
If, in limited circumstances, the second Chamber is to have the right to challenge the will of this House, it must have legitimacy, openness and fairness in its composition


that allows it to be respected and listened to by the public and by the House of Commons. I hope that we can achieve that in future debates as the legislation is introduced.

Mr. Eric Forth: The trouble with debates such as this is that it is easy for Members to agree with superficially attractive propositions. We have heard much of that tonight. There has been near unanimity on some simple propositions, most obviously the idea that it is essential to our political system to have a second Chamber that provides an effective check on and scrutiny of the House of Commons. One or two unicameralists among us did not share that view, but there has been widespread agreement that a second Chamber should scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account.
Another view widely, but easily, shared is that the second Chamber should be legitimate and accountable. Such words are widely used and it comforts politicians to be able to say them. However, the consensus goes no further. As soon as we have to put hard substance around those words, it becomes more difficult to reach agreement. I find it difficult to understand how Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) can stress accountability and democracy, yet support an appointed second Chamber.
In fairness, I should say that some braver spirits on the Labour Benches have not done that. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) robustly supported an elected Chamber, as I do. It is difficult to understand how anyone, whether in my own party or in any other, can, in an era of allegedly open government, democracy, accountability and political legitimacy—all the things to which we say we subscribe—can say that the second Chamber of the legislature should be largely or even wholly appointed. That is unconscionable.
Few Members—the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple–Morris) is an exception—mentioned whether appointed legislators in another Chamber should have a fixed term or serve for life. The hon. Gentleman, in what was almost a throwaway remark, said that they should serve for life. That begs some interesting questions about how the composition of the Chamber could ever change to reflect changing circumstances. Presumably, it would have to happen by attrition if the number in the Chamber were to be limited. Alternatively, there might be no limit on the number, in which case we could return quickly to something perilously similar to the present arrangement.

Mr. Rowe: Is there not a tremendous danger that people would be reluctant to appoint people of other than a considerable age? What the legislature needs above all is more young people.

Mr. Forth: I was with my hon. Friend until his final words. I do not share the obsession with youth. When I had an element of responsibility for young people during the previous Government I was frequently told that our youth were our future. When I looked at some of them, I thought, "My God, I hope not", and I cannot agree with my hon. Friend.
In fact, I am tempted by the idea that there should be a higher age limit on eligibility for the second Chamber so that we could do the opposite of what my hon. Friend suggests, ensuring that the upper Chamber would be, by definition, mature and experienced and that its Members could not spend too long in it. That would provide an automatic renewal mechanism whether the Chamber was appointed or, as I would prefer, elected.
An appointment system raises real difficulties. Quite apart from lack of legitimacy and accountability, difficulties arise over numbers, the variability of the composition when circumstances change and the removal of Members who are no longer appropriate. There is also the vexed question—hardly covered in our debate, but one of the key considerations before us—of who would do the appointing, and who would appoint those who do the appointing, and who would appoint them. Despite the claims of Labour Members who are loyal to their Prime Minister, how could we guarantee that the Prime Minister would—as he has said he would—stand aside and allow the process to be non-political? I do not believe that and I suspect that even many Labour Members do not. For an appointed Chamber to be valid, we would have to be satisfied that appointments would be free of the patronage that has so often been mentioned tonight. Like so many of my hon. Friends, I readily argue for an elected second Chamber. To my mind, that is the only approach that we can countenance at this stage in our political history and constitutional development.
The second Chamber should be composed of a multiple of 87 Members. That number was not chosen at random, as cognoscenti will understand. We have a ready-made political map of 87 constituencies. They happen to be European constituencies, I might add sotto voce, but, for the purpose of my proposal, I will accept that. We could use that map almost immediately without needing a boundary commission. I would prefer a small Chamber, but I would be prepared to accept twice or even three times that number if that was deemed to be appropriate to the Chamber's functions.
I suggest long terms for Members of the Chamber, probably nine or 12 years, to give them some independence of the Government. That is important. A third should be elected every two or three years or perhaps a bit longer to make the Chamber responsive to the electorate and changes in their views and to make it a distinctive political entity with a validity distinct from that of the House of Commons and the Government.
As many hon. Members have argued, there must be no Ministers in the upper House, which would therefore become genuinely independent of the Government. It would reflect the electorate's views and gain legitimacy and accountability. There would be no power of patronage in the upper House because the Government would not determine what happened there. Because Members had long terms of office, they could act genuinely independently. We could thus meet many of the requirements that many hon. Members say that they seek—but often shrink from—in a revised second Chamber. I do not shrink from the implications of saying that the Chamber should be powerful because I want it properly to scrutinise and hold to account the Government of the day.
Some colleagues may know that I spend a lot of time in the Chamber. I am one of those eccentrics who attends on Fridays. Not everyone welcomes that, but I believe that


I can therefore say that I do my best to be a good Member of this House. That does not mean that I have blind faith in it or in the idea that everything begins and ends here. Nor do I accept without criticism the argument about the primacy of the House of Commons. I regret what I am about to say, but it is true. Many of those Members who talk about this House's primacy do not come here to support it. The thin attendance at this debate is an example, as is the pathetically small attendance on Fridays and on many other occasions. All the talk about the House's vital importance is regrettably not borne out by the actions of its Members.

Mr. Hogg: I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend says. With regard to Fridays, does he accept that private Members' Bills often diminish the rights of individuals to a marked extent? An obvious example was the attempt to prohibit foxhunting; another example is the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. However, as a general rule, the House is not well attended on the occasions when those measures are discussed—albeit that their consequence is greatly to diminish individual liberty.

Mr. Forth: I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend and I am grateful to him for making that point. Many private Members' Bills would limit considerably the powers of individuals, or would introduce a large degree of regulation. However, few Members of the House turn up voluntarily to participate in the debates on those measures.
I do not necessarily agree with those who say that the House is so wonderful that it must never be challenged. I am prepared to countenance an elected upper House with enormous powers and ability to challenge what happens in the House of Commons. As so many hon. Members have pointed out, the real difficulty and the sadness about the modern House of Commons is that it is so much in the total control of the Executive of the day. That cannot be changed in the foreseeable future, so we owe it to the electorate to provide them with the assurance that there will be a second Chamber that can effectively challenge the Executive and hold them to account, in a way that I regret that the House of Commons rarely, if ever, now demonstrates that it is capable of doing.
Those are my arguments and, in view of the time, I shall draw them to a close. To complete them, I join the few Members who have highlighted the judicial role currently played by the House of Lords. That role can be, and should be, swept aside, along with the reforms that we are considering. We should have a supreme court, modelled closely on the one that has played such a distinguished role in the development of the United States throughout almost its entire history. The US Supreme Court is one of the most fascinating political institutions of the past 200 years; its role has been dramatic and remarkable. We would do well to emulate that court. If, as I suggest, we establish a wholly elected, accountable second Chamber, we should sweep away the unnecessary representation of the Church and other interests—I should be happy if that were gone, and the sooner the better. I should also be happy to see the judicial role of the upper Chamber brought to an end and replaced by a supreme court, modelled closely on that of the United States and able to play a similar role.
I am glad that the proposals that I have briefly outlined are shared by many of my colleagues. I hope that they find increasing support from Labour Members.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: The debate has been genuinely interesting. It has helped me to formulate my views—albeit tentative ones—on a subject that raises difficult issues, especially when one deals with the vexed question whether the second Chamber should be elected or nominated. I had thought that I was reasonably knowledgeable on the subject, but, having heard the wide range of rather good-quality contributions, it is clear to me that I must bow to the greater specialist knowledge of several hon. Members.
I am a relatively new Member, having been elected in 1997. I represent a Welsh constituency and am committed to Welsh devolution. I am aware that there is a wide programme of constitutional reform and that reform of the second Chamber also has to embrace the reforms in that programme. I welcome the fact that a royal commission has been appointed and I expect it to produce a comprehensive and well-argued report.
The first of my conclusions is that there is a need for a second Chamber. I do not accept the rather intriguing argument employed by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). However, I do accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). A second Chamber is a reflection of what is required in a particular country. In our jurisdiction, there is a strong Executive and a strong first Chamber—the elected Chamber. As a corrective to an over-mighty Executive, it is essential to have a second Chamber charged with the tasks of revising legislation and complementing the scrutiny role of the elected Chamber by bringing to bear specialised knowledge.
That is my starting point. Given the public demand for strong and accountable government exercised through the House of Commons, it is unrealistic to expect this Chamber to do all that is required to produce good-quality legislation. Unfortunately, there have been many examples of poor legislation, which, in themselves, provide ample justification for having a second, revising Chamber. I make no apologies for taking a somewhat minimalist view, for my second conclusion is that there is no strongly rooted case for revising the essential roles of the second Chamber. I disagree with the analysis of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who would like the role of the second Chamber to be greatly expanded.
I agree that there is an inherent problem in having an elected second Chamber that could contest the will of our elected Chamber, but my third conclusion is that there must be a strong independent element in any second Chamber. Although I was almost persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who offered an extremely good analysis of why, in the latter half of the 20th century, we must conclude that legitimacy is normally derived from the ballot box, I take the view that, to preserve the independence of the second Chamber and to ensure that it effectively fulfils its revising and scrutiny roles, it is necessary for it to consist of a wide range of people who reflect different experiences. I am sceptical that the conventional electoral system, which involves people working their way through conventional political parties, would produce the sort of people we want in the second Chamber.
In addition, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), I am concerned that the increased number of elections for different levels of government has resulted in voter fatigue. If the second Chamber is to have a limited role, which I would support, turnout in elections for it might be drastically low, which would undermine its legitimacy. The best way to ensure that we have an independent second Chamber is to have an appointments commission that is seen to be dispassionate, independent and detached from the Executive. Like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I hope the Minister will tell us more about how the Government propose to give teeth to such a commission.
In Wales and Scotland, there has been debate about whether there should be territorial representation in the second Chamber. I support the view expressed many years ago in the Kilbrandon report that that would be undesirable. I am in favour of a broad spread of geographical representation, but not in any formalised way, because that might lead to confusion about the functions of the House of Lords—incidentally, I see no reason why its name should be changed.
A balance must be struck between, on the one hand, tradition and stability and, on the other, the need to create a second Chamber that is more representative and fulfils its role more effectively. Provided that we can deal with the overriding objection to the current system—that there is an in-built Conservative majority in the House of Lords—I would feel comfortable with a nominated House of Lords, so long as the system for nominations was truly detached and dispassionate and ensured good-quality, independent representation.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I shall have to be brief and I have only myself to blame if I am called last. I must apologise to the House for having missed the opening speeches. The reason, I must confide to the House, is that I was attempting to maintain my independence by carrying out some of my professional duties instead of attending the House, although I had hopes that I might be able to get here slightly earlier than I did. Perhaps I am paying the penalty for that, although I was reassured to hear several Labour Members suggest that it was not necessarily a bad thing that I should have some independent interests.
I start from the premise that I am a great believer in parliamentary democracy. That does not mean that I am a believer in pure democracy, because only the ancient Athenians had pure democracy and they tended to chop off the heads of members of the Executive whom they had democratically mandated at the end of each term. Parliamentary democracy works especially well in this country and in the structure of this Chamber because there is a reasonable degree of consensus about and acceptance of the decisions that we take. However, there are many flaws in the way this Chamber operates. I do not want to go into them in this speech, which will deal mainly with the upper House, but the way we carry out our functions is in need of massive reform. That that is so does not alter the need for us to consider what goes on in the House of Lords.
We have been offered a package that goes only part of the way. I accept what is said about the hereditary peers being anachronistic, but they are an independent element.

We are getting rid of that independent element and we will end up—it appears at the moment—with only nominated Members.
The functions of the upper House need to be strengthened—not enormously, but slightly. What I found most interesting in the contributions of Labour Members was not that they did not want the other place to have enhanced powers. Their fear was that the result of the reforms would be that the upper House might suddenly start to exercise the powers that it already has in a way that it would be wholly entitled to do. It could use its powers to scrutinise and, if necessary, delay legislation. That would be a good thing. I can think of few instances in which delaying legislation would result in some catastrophe, given the legislation that has passed through this Parliament since the second world war.
On constitutional issues, if there is disagreement between the upper House and this place, it is desirable that the upper House should have the power to block legislation and, if it blocks it twice, for the matter to be referred to a referendum to resolve it. That would be a powerful enhancement of democracy. If we take that approach—it is the only one we can properly take in a democratic society—it is axiomatic that the House of Lords will have to be principally an elected Chamber. It must be an elected Chamber. No other solution that has been put forward could command the legitimacy that the Chamber must have if it is properly to fulfil its functions.

Mr. Swayne: I ask my hon. Friend to extend that principle. Will he accept that apostolic succession is a form of election in a purer and more ancient sense, and it is highly desirable that it should be preserved in the new system that he is developing?

Mr. Grieve: I am not sure that I feel wholly qualified to comment on the apostolic succession. On the basic issue of the form that the upper House must take, I am convinced that election is the only solution and the only one that the electorate will accept. There are many ways in which that can be achieved, and I am certainly willing to consider a form of proportional representation.
For the reasons eloquently stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), there is no great philosophical debate about whether the system should be first past the post or proportional representation—it is a matter of practicality. I believe it is essential that we preserve the first-past-the-post system in this place. However, for a revising Chamber, in which perhaps no members of the Executive will sit, I have no objection to the idea of selection through some form of proportional representation.
We could have a rotating Chamber. One third of Members could have fixed terms of considerable length—nine or 10 years has been suggested—and others could have single terms. In those circumstances, I believe that we can create a vibrant second Chamber that has the capacity to revise legislation, to hold the Government to account, to generate its own legislation when the Government do not have time to do so, and to call a halt in certain circumstances unless a referendum were held. That would be a powerful enhancement of democracy.
I disagree entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) that the manifesto somehow confers great legitimacy on political parties,


which entitles them to ride roughshod over minority views during their period in office—especially when one considers that opinions often change. I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's failure to mention that what appears in a manifesto often does not reach the statute book. Is that omission so shameful that we should insist that every policy in the manifesto becomes legislation and that Governments cannot change their mind? Why on earth should we always allow Governments to have it their own way?
I do not have time to develop all my arguments, but I wish to touch on a matter that I raised by way of several interventions. I have always accepted that a purely elected system has one considerable drawback: the loss of the independent element in the form of those who have a great deal to contribute but will not necessarily be willing to stand for election.
It has been said that a great strength of the upper House is its ability to involve in political discussions and policy formulation appointed and hereditary peers who have no party political affiliations, who would not stand for election and who do not wish to wear the label of any political party. If we are to go down the road of electing members to the second Chamber, the greatest drawback will be the possibility a producing a replica of this place.
I have an open mind about this issue, but I do not wish to see appointed peers or Members of the House of Lords. The exercise of prime ministerial patronage is a deeply corrupting process. I was fascinated to hear the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) criticise the sale of hereditary peerages when the appointed system has its own inherent corruptions that many Labour Members appear happy to see continue.
I believe that there is mileage in considering the notion that if we are to have non-elected Members of the House of Lords, they should be co-opted by elected Members. Dozens of bodies and organisations up and down the land both co-opt and elect members. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) argued that, in such circumstances, the party with the majority would co-opt its own placemen to supplement its numbers. That is not, however, likely to happen because there are two ways in which it can be prevented. First, if there is a system of proportional representation, it is unlikely that any party will have a majority to bring in its placemen because there will have to be a measure of agreement with others about who should enter the Chamber. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why, in framing legislation, the House should not introduce a clause stating that the co-option should be done by two-thirds majority.
We belittle the upper House and its capacity as an elected Chamber to perform a role different from our own if we think that the views of its Members will be dominated by party political considerations. If we frame the legislation properly, we can allow those Members to carry out the co-option of possibly a quarter or even a third of their number to enable them to bring into the upper House for a similar period those who are willing to serve and have a contribution to make. If we are considering having unelected Members, that is the only way in which a reasonable level of legitimacy can be conferred. I should be prepared to consider and back that proposal because it has merit, and would have merit with the electorate.
I turn now to the point that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who asked me about apostolic succession. There are two groups within the upper House who currently come from what can only be described as a slightly corporatist background: the first is the bishops and the other is the Law Lords.
I have great regard for the presence of the Law Lords in the upper House because it significantly enhances the quality of debate there and the whole approach and ethos by marrying, at the top end, the legislature and the judiciary. I do not believe in the separation of powers. One of this country's unique features is the extraordinary way in which we have maintained such links and the fact that they have been of benefit. Given the small number of seats involved, I would be willing to make an exception for the Law Lords and allow them to remain in the upper House by virtue of their office.
I regret to have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West that I have rather more serious doubts in respect of the bishops. There should be representation of religious organisations and organised religion, but that should be achieved by the co-option process that I have suggested rather than by enshrining in legislation a place for those of a particular denomination.
I could go on at great length on a large number of topics, but I shall refrain from doing so. I shall conclude by addressing the corporatist aspects of the debate. Frankly, I was shocked to hear some hon. Members suggest that Members of the upper House should be drawn from interest groups. That was a popular notion and may even have been popular with Churchill at the turn of the century. At that time, I regret to tell the House, some fascist notions had a certain degree of popularity and continued until, thankfully, they disappeared in the 1930s. Until then, the Webbs and many socialists were interested in those ideas. They are very cosy; they relate to the setting up of corporate groups that have interests that are exclusive to themselves and at variance with others outside.
Nobody has yet explained to me what happens to what I suppose might have been described as the lumpen proletariat, who are not supposed to form part of any interest group at all. Frankly, I am horrified that a democratic body should even be contemplating having an interest in those structures. I say to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) that although such structures may well work in Ireland because it is a small country, they are treated as archaic and they cause embarrassment to those who know the origins of the idea. It originated in an interest in fascism in the Republic of Ireland.
I see that 9.30 pm is approaching, so I shall obey the time constraint.

Mr. Hogg: The coach is at the door.

Mr. Grieve: Indeed; I shall respect that.
I urge the House to bear in mind the fact that only a primarily elected second Chamber will command the legitimacy required to provide the necessary scrutiny of legislation.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I should make two brief apologies. First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). I had hoped that he might have just a minute or two in which to speak. Secondly, I apologise to the House in general because, as the Minister and I agreed to cut our winding-up speeches from 20 minutes to 15, I fear that it will not be possible to give way if one is to try to deal with all 15 Back-Bench speeches. I greatly regret that because, as most hon. Members present know, I rather enjoy interventions.
I suppose that one should begin by saying that we would not have started from here. We do not believe that the Government have handled this issue well. The royal commission should have been established two years ago. In fact, the debate should have taken place at roughly the same time as those on the White Papers on devolution in the summer of 1997. If that had been so, we would perhaps have been able to make a more logical progression towards reform of the second Chamber.
But we must be where we are. We have had a good debate in what one must acknowledge is a thin House. Nevertheless, 15 Back-Bench speeches have been made—all of them thoughtful and stimulating, and some of them quite amusing. It is wonderful to hear ex-Ministers speak. We listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my right hon. and buccaneering Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). With the constraints of office removed from them all, they were able to talk about holding to account, when no Ministers were more tyrannical than they were. There is more joy in the House of Commons over one ex-Minister who repenteth than over 90 and nine others.
I believe that the Leader of the Opposition has the right to take some credit for establishing the Mackay commission. It is right that its extremely thoughtful document should have been submitted to the royal commission as part of our submission. It is right—indeed, it would be grossly discourteous if we did otherwise—to give ample time for discussion in our party of the two alternatives, as well as the others, before coming to a definitive conclusion. As we called for the establishment of the royal commission, and much as we regret the tardy implementation of that policy, it would be grossly discourteous if we did not await Lord Wakeham's final report before coming to a definitive conclusion. All my remarks in this debate must be against that background.
Of course, I am rather relieved to be able to say that. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said that we needed enormous political will and consensus if we were to move to agreed reform. We have heard the expression of quite a number of political wills, some more enormous than others, but we have certainly not seen any consensus on either side of the House. Several hon. Members have said that they think that stage 1 will last indefinitely. Although we are not here to debate stage 1, I say in parenthesis that it is incumbent on us all to do everything that we can at least to ensure that it works for as long as it lasts, because it will be the second Chamber for the foreseeable future.
Some diverse views have been expressed. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) was the only unicameralist to take part in this debate, although we all

know that a number of colleagues on both sides of the House share his view. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an extraordinarily diverting speech. Towards the end of a most entertaining peroration, he seemed half to advocate a virtual Parliament. I do not quite know what he means by that, although we shall doubtless discover if he develops that idea in speeches and writings.
Various themes have run throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said—and he said it very slowly and deliberately, and was right to do so—that we must remember that we are talking about one Parliament which has two Houses. It is impossible properly to discuss in isolation the powers, functions and composition of one House without having regard to the other House, or the effect that one has upon the other. That was the underlying theme of much of today's debate.
A number of hon. Members talked about the inadequacy of our scrutiny procedures. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) went so far as to call them "shoddy", but I think that we would all accept that they could definitely be improved.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—picking up on a most admirable speech by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—talked about the problems of holding the Executive to account. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that, if he could recast his speech into an article on how to be a Back Bencher and distribute it on both sides of the House, hon. Members would benefit greatly from it. He has great experience, and was able to demonstrate, going back as far as 30 years, how the independence of Back Benchers is crucial if one is to have an effective Executive.
A supine legislature provides for a bad Executive, and Government Back Benchers should always remember that. It is only by articulating principles and being prepared—as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is so regularly prepared—to speak out that the Executive are kept on their toes. Would that more hon. Members emulated his example.
We had a particularly interesting and thoughtful speech from the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). He is not an advocate of direct elections, but favours a mixed-composition House. He also expressed the very real need for improving our powers of scrutiny, particularly of secondary legislation. He talked about Henry VIII clauses, but I should tell him that I have rather rechristened them as Louis XIV clauses, as the current Government so often seem to think that "L'état c'est moi." However, their predecessor was not entirely without blemish in that regard.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk also talked about the need to improve scrutiny of European legislation, and perhaps to re-examine the revising powers of the House of Lords and the length of time that it should have to delay legislation.
My right hon. Friend was not alone in advocating a non-elected or mixed-composition House. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) made an extremely long speech—28 minutes—on that particular subject. My former hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris)—who is still a friend, but who, in


parliamentary terms, can no longer deserve the epithet of hon. Friend—also made an interesting speech on that type of House.
One has to accept, however, that the majority of speeches—particularly those made by Opposition Members—argued for either a wholly or largely directly elected House. That message was quite clear in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester—who has written, lectured and broadcast so extensively on the subject—and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who made the final Back-Bench speech in the debate. One of the themes that they all took up—as did some of those who argued for a mixed-composition House—was that, in a mixed second Chamber, it would perhaps be advisable not to have Ministers. That point was echoed on both sides of the House.
It is crucial that we should reflect carefully on what the royal commission says; study, analyse and debate its findings; and do so mindful of what has been said in the House in this debate. However, it is crucial to the future of our democracy that we should not rush to judgment, either before or immediately after the royal commission reports. We should consider, as part of our discussion process, all those views, and we have to recognise the strengths and weaknesses in every argument.
We should be honest with each other. I am of a conservative persuasion, but those of us who tend to favour the more cautious, evolutionary approach must beware of the pitfalls of patronage, which have been talked about eloquently by many of my hon. Friends and Labour Members. If there are to be appointed peers, the system of appointment must be beyond the control of party leaders, although it can never be beyond their legitimate influence.
We must recognise that there are many who believe that those arguments are deeply flawed. However, those who propose a radical solution must be aware that a wholly elected Chamber, notwithstanding any transitional stages, would sweep away those who currently serve in the other place.

Mr. Forth: That is the whole idea.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It may be, but it would not be inappropriate to say a word from the Dispatch Box in recognition of the sterling service that the life peers, like the hereditary peers, have performed over the years. It would be churlish not to recognise that there is a great reservoir of talent there: political, academic, industrial, commercial, military—you name it, it is there. To sweep it away without complete regard for what we are doing would be a serious step.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—or Easter Island, as was once said—acknowledged that some appointments might be necessary to ensure that there were some independent members. Without some such mechanism, a directly elected House would mean the end of the Cross Benchers. Such a House could also deliver greater power to the party machines than any appointment system, particularly if the elections were held with the crass system that we are to have tomorrow. It would dramatically transform relations

between the Houses, leading almost inevitably to the creation of a supreme court and a written constitution. It would also create a situation in which only the Head of State was not elected.
None of those is an insuperable obstacle. All matters are open for discussion. My party has not closed its mind to the option, but we must recognise that there are serious issues to debate. We also have to consider who would seek election to such a body. If its powers remained as the White Paper envisages, there would be little incentive for those of high talent and real ability to seek election. The need to seek election and satisfy constituents would seriously reduce the time that members had for scrutiny. If we are to give United States-style senatorial powers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst forthrightly advocates, we have to ask what we would be doing in this Chamber and what our relations would be with the other House. All those profound questions have to be addressed.
It is important not to be seduced by arguments of superficial legitimacy. What matters is the system as a whole. No one seriously suggests that, because we are a constitutional monarchy with a non-elected upper House, we are not a proper parliamentary democracy. We are, and for the best part of the past 200 years we have been held up throughout the world as an example of a true parliamentary democracy.
The hon. Member for Harlow used the old cliché about throwing out the baby with the bath water. We have to be careful that we do not demolish the bathroom as well. Out of our deliberations must come a strengthened parliamentary system. We must create two Houses in which the Executive are held properly to account and all legislation—primary, secondary, European, the lot—is thoroughly and properly scrutinised. We must be able to deliver something that is better than the current system. That is our only legitimate aim and that is my definition of legitimacy. Over the next few months, as we wait for Lord Wakeham's commission to report, I ask the House to have as broad a discussion as possible in all our parties. We must face up to the real issues involved, some of which I have tried briefly to refer to this evening.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): This debate has been delayed, but it has been well worth waiting for. There have been 18 speakers and, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said earlier, it has been in the nature of a discussion. I have sat through almost all of it and I have learned a great deal. The discussion has helped to crystallise my thinking.
As well as discussion we have had confessions. I was struck by the confession of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) who told us about his life as a Whip. I welcome a sinner who repents. I turn to my colleagues and ask them to look closely at his words and to repent before midnight.
We have also had tutorials. I got slightly alarmed when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was giving a coaching lesson to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). My hon. Friend is certainly not a clone and giving him tips on how to offer more effective opposition was dangerous.
Anybody who thought that there would be some sort of consensus arising from the debate would have been disappointed. I was struck by the comment of my hon.


Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) who said that he hoped the commission would listen to our collective views. I am not sure what our collective views are. Different people have expressed different views. We have heard from unicameralists, those who want an elected second Chamber, those who want an appointed second Chamber and those who want a mixed second Chamber. There has been talk about people being elected to represent communities of interest and that there should be functional representatives and representatives from different parts of the United Kingdom. There has been a good deal of talk, highlighted by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), that the second Chamber should not include Ministers but should have a purely scrutinising and revising role.
What has struck me most about the debate is how self-critical it has been. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have expressed a real desire to check the role of the Executive and to scrutinise legislation more closely. No one has been partisan about that as the views have been expressed on both sides of the Chamber. There has been an understanding that the situation has prevailed for many years and I sensed tonight a real desire for change.
In part answer to the criticism, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told us to look to ourselves and to use our existing devices and powers to achieve our aim, but other steps can be taken, too. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) mentioned pre-legislative scrutiny. 1 am delighted that that is beginning to happen and that draft Bills are being considered by Select Committees and Special Standing Committees involving Members from both Chambers.
I was struck by the comment of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who, as well as talking about information technology and Members pushing buttons, made a telling point about what his constituents want from him. They want to ensure that the services delivered by the Government and their agencies—as he put it—make things better. After all, government is about making things better. The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the need for Parliament to discuss the issues of the day—not simply to resolve them, but to highlight them and give them air. There is a wider point here. We need to develop the role of the House to consider and check what has been done and how far what has been promised has been achieved. At the moment, we are not particularly good at that.
A number of hon. Members drew attention to the democratic deficit and the desire for closer scrutiny which can be achieved only by increasing powers to the second Chamber. Let me reinforce a point that has been made several times within the debate: we need to look at the powers available to the House of Lords and the powers that are actually used. I believe that that reform will give us an opportunity to codify that and put practices and traditions on a better footing. A reformed upper House will have new confidence. The sign of a good relationship is the ability to fall out but still continue to talk. Reform will give us the opportunity to do just that.
Some have argued for new and increased powers for the second Chamber. However, a more sophisticated and persuasive argument would press the case for different

and complementary powers for the second Chamber. A number of suggestions have been made as to what they should be and I anticipate that the royal commission will look at them closely.
It is significant that we are having this debate at all and that we are having it now. Its tone shows that change will happen. The House of Lords Reform Bill is making progress in the upper House. I followed its Committee stage with interest—all seven and a half days of it and all 180 amendments. Its Report stage starts next week. Some of the issues that the House of Lords will be considering have been raised tonight. They include the powers of the House of Lords and its relationship with the Commons, the status of any appointments committee, the size of a reformed House of Lords and the arrangements to govern the relative strengths of the parties within it.
Let me stir it up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said earlier. His neighbour, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, "We would not have started from here". Some of us would reply, "You would not have started at all". We need only look back at the Conservative party campaign guide, the Conservative manifesto and in particular the views expressed by the chairman of the party in his submission to the royal commission last month. He said:
We did not seek to change the House of Lords",
but the debate has moved forward.
I read the Mackay report and I found it thoughtful and temperate in its approach. It said that many of the powers currently exercised by the House of Lords should be maintained, but that it should not be given any greater powers. I noted that it stressed the primacy of the House of Commons.
We have not had an opportunity to discuss in detail the submission by the Conservative party to the royal commission. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) invited us to get a copy. I tried and it was extremely difficult. I asked for a copy from Conservative Central Office. We wrote and begged for one and it did not come, but today we managed to get a copy of "A Stronger Parliament". Let me refer to some of its contents. The Conservatives wanted at least a directly elected element. They were not attracted to indirect representation from the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. They wanted increasing powers over secondary legislation, no age limit, no quotas, an opening size of around 659 members and a kind of monthly question time. Some of the things in that submission appear to be in contrast to what the noble Lord Mackay has said.
I wish to stress something that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. We are committed to ensuring that no party has an overall majority in the upper Chamber. I do not accept the disparaging remarks of Opposition Members on either that commitment or on the appointments commission. For the first time ever, we have a Prime Minister who is giving up powers. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may scoff, but I have looked carefully at the appointments made by previous Conservative Prime Ministers, which deserve scrutiny. The royal commission will examine closely the need for parity of parties and the work of the appointments commission.
Along with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), I have been impressed with the start that the


royal commission has made. During the debates, there has been criticism of the timetable. The royal commission has been given a tight timetable—I acknowledge that. Nevertheless, we expect its report around the end of the year. I have been impressed by the commission's desire to gain views from outside the magic political circle. It published a consultation paper which set out the questions that the commission thought needed to be addressed as part of its evidence-gathering. It is available on a web site.
In addition, the commission has been out on the road. I understand that these events have been positively received, despite what some newspaper reports have said about poor attendance. Those who attended felt that it was worth while and that their views were listened to properly. The road shows received extensive coverage in the local media. I was particularly impressed by a double-page spread in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph on 25 May. Not only was the coverage extensive, it was thoughtful, informative and spread the debate to a much wider audience. All of that bodes well for the royal commission's report, which I look forward to reading at the end of the year.
The House of Lords Bill has proved the trigger for change, and I hope and expect that the Bill will complete all its stages shortly. The two-stage approach will prove to be manageable and successful. It is, after all, in our long tradition of gradual change. Some have argued for a big bang approach. However, a manageable approach, taken in stages, will prove to be correct. After a century of debate, we will be able to deliver the goods.
The debate tonight has looked further forward, and I hope that the royal commission will take note of the views expressed. It has a tough timetable to meet, but let me point out to doubters on both sides of the House that the tough timetable is an indication of the Government's good faith and of our intention to seek a proper and fundamental reform of the House of Lords. It is also clear evidence of our desire that, after more than a century of debate, this time that will be achieved.
I conclude with some words from the White Paper, as set out in the executive summary. The commission is
being asked to report by the end of 1999, to enable the Government to make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament by the time of the general election.
That remains our firm intention.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Kosovo

10 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I come to the House with some important and welcome news about the situation in Kosovo. At the end of many long and hard hours of discussion and negotiation, General Sir Michael Jackson has announced that he has signed the military technical agreement on behalf of NATO, setting out the detailed conditions for peace in the light of the draft United Nations Security Council resolution.
The agreement sets out in detail how all the Serb forces should conduct a phased, verifiable and orderly withdrawal from Kosovo. It provides, as General Jackson has made clear, an agreed basis for the deployment of an international security force, known as KFOR, to establish a secure environment in Kosovo.
The House will appreciate that this agreement is a major political and military vindication of NATO's policy, of its resolve and of its determination to end the horrific ethnic cleansing conducted by Milosevic and his troops and regime. It will pave the way for the eventual return of the refugees.
We expect that the United Nations Security Council resolution will be passed shortly and that the necessary measures will all be in place for the rapid deployment of KFOR, but I must warn the House that we have been misled by Milosevic before. We have learned not to trust his words and we will need to see his troops on the way out of Kosovo. We will want to see verifiable compliance with the terms of the agreement before allowing NATO to suspend the bombing campaign.
That is up to Milosevic. For our part, we look forward to being able to move to the next and very demanding stage and to the enormous challenges that lie ahead. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, there is now a huge job to be done as the Serb forces go out, the international force goes in and we get the refugees home. We are ready for that task and British forces will be among the first to cross the border into Kosovo. All the House will, I am sure, be proud of that effort and join me in wishing them and their NATO allies every success in the difficult weeks and months ahead.

Mr. John Maples: The whole House will be delighted with that news, and we are very grateful to the Secretary of State for coming here tonight to make his statement. This is obviously a major step on the road from war to peace, although, as he said, there are an awful lot of problems still to be overcome.
The talks were obviously extremely difficult and our thanks are due to General Jackson and his staff. Were any concessions made in the course of the talks? Press reports say that the Serbs are being given longer to withdraw than the seven days originally planned. Will that delay the deployment of KFOR, and is there a possibility that both KFOR and the Yugoslav army will be in Kosovo at the same time? Does that present any difficulties? It is also reported that the buffer zone has been reduced from 25 to 5 km. Is that significant to the security of KFOR?
What timing does the Secretary of State expect on the UN Security Council resolution? He said that he hoped that it would be passed soon, but, as I understand it—


perhaps he can confirm this—KFOR cannot be deployed into Kosovo until it has been passed and the sequence would be: Serb withdrawal; cessation of bombing; UN Security Council resolution; and then the deployment of KFOR. We would all like to know that KFOR was in a position to deploy as soon as possible. Does he anticipate any difficulties about China's vote in the UN Security Council?
We all understand that the crucial test of success in the operation is the refugees being able to return to their homes, and the crucial ingredient in that is the composition of KFOR. Is there any significance in the fact that a footnote to the terms agreed on 3 June by Ahtisaari and the Serb Government spoke of KFOR having
NATO at its core
and a
unified chain of command under the political direction of the North Atlantic Council
but that the UN Security Council draft resolution does not go as far as that and mentions NATO only in an annexe referring to "substantial NATO participation"?
I know that such negotiations are difficult and the wording does not always say exactly what will happen, but we would like to feel sure that the force will be able to do its job, because, if it cannot, the refugees will not go home and we will not have succeeded in what the Government and all of us have set out to achieve.
Will the Secretary of State say a word about whether Russian troops will participate in KFOR? It has been said that they will not be under NATO command, but it is important to ensure that Russia does not get a zone of occupation in Kosovo and Russian troops are spread around, as they are in Bosnia.
The difficulties for KFOR, its British component and General Jackson are only just beginning. They have all been sitting waiting for this moment for several months—all of them for several weeks, and General Jackson for several months. I am sure that the whole House wishes them every good fortune in the operations that they are about to undertake.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments about the efforts that have led to this evening's news, and especially for his praise for General Mike Jackson. I was with General Jackson yesterday in Macedonia, and I know how much he appreciates the support given by so many people in this country, and on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman and 1, with other Opposition Members, have visited some of our troops in action, and that in itself was a solid illustration of the way in which the British public have stayed with the campaign through all its difficult days, helping us to ensure that we get the refugees back home, and that the strategic threat that Milosevic represents not only to Kosovo but to the wider Balkans, has, as I hope, been seen off.
The hon. Gentleman asked several detailed questions, but he will appreciate that there are many of them that I cannot answer. I have come to report to the House, as I thought proper, at the earliest opportunity, and we have not had the opportunity to see all the technical details.
However, the hon. Gentleman can take it from me, and from his own instincts, that General Mike Jackson would not have agreed to any conditions in the military technical agreement that he thought would obstruct his work in getting KFOR in safely and securely to go about its job. Some of the technical questions about timing will be fixed in the agreement, which will have realistically laid down, in a verifiable way, times when all the Serb forces will leave Kosovo.
One of the reasons for the delay in the discussions in the now famous tent was the need to ensure that there would be no security vacuum in Kosovo, and the Serb withdrawal would be synchronised with KFOR's entry. I am sure that we will be satisfied with those provisions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the like. I am told that the North Atlantic Council, to which the military technical agreement will go, is in session as we speak, and it is possible that the UN Security Council will also meet soon, perhaps even before dawn, so that, simultaneously, each of the features of the agreement—the Ahtisaari-Chernomyrdin agreement, the draft Security Council resolution and the technical military agreement—can all work together to ensure that movement can be as quick as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about a unified chain of command. I can assure him that General Jackson, who signed the military technical agreement tonight as commander of KFOR on behalf of NATO, is under no illusions, and neither are the Serbs, about his role and the way in which he will go about his business.
I cannot answer questions about the role of the Russians, but we all hope that they and the other nations will find a peacekeeping role inside Kosovo. That will be done in the best and most effective way possible. I must correct the hon. Gentleman, in that the Russians who are working with us in Bosnia are not scattered throughout the country; they operate within the structures and they have their own particular structures, which have worked well in the past. They are in one zone in one of the multinational divisions in Bosnia. However, that does not determine the way in which things will happen in future.
At the end of his question, the hon. Gentleman rightly commended our troops for what they have done. I also commend the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the civilian back-up in the Ministry of Defence—people who have done a great deal here. I also commend the other elements inside the Government machine—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has played such a distinguished role in the past few days in securing the draft Security Council resolution, and all those in the Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office and No. 10 who have contributed to ensuring that we reached this position.
I repeat what I said before: despite all the difficulties, traumas and pain involved, the task of the past 75 days may have been the easier part of the job. A difficult job is ahead of us now which will require the same unity of purpose in the alliance and the same grim determination that has seen us through all these days. We must make sure that we deliver on the promise that we all gave—to get the Kosovo refugees back to their homeland again.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The announcement by the Secretary of State is a credit to all


those responsible for these matters over the past 75 days, and in particular to General Sir Mike Jackson. Anyone who has ever met him will know that those facing him across the negotiating table faced a very formidable adversary indeed.
Does the Secretary of State understand that, even for those who supported the Government, tonight is an occasion not for triumphalism so much as for relief? As he rightly pointed out, many of the past 78 days have been difficult. Would we not be right to be cautious about the tasks that lie ahead, not least because we have little idea of what NATO forces may find when they penetrate into Kosovo? Apart from the risks posed by booby traps and the indiscriminate use of mines, is it not also possible that untold horrors of brutality remain to be uncovered?
In that regard, will the Secretary of State assure the House that British forces, and the NATO forces in general, will be assiduous in collecting evidence so that those who ought to face the war crimes tribunal in The Hague may be indicted in due course?
Finally, the Secretary of State will be aware that some individual members of the minority community of people of Serbian extraction have displayed conspicuous bravery in attempting to aid their neighbours against those seeking to ethnically cleanse the country in which they lived. Does that not argue very strongly for a clear statement by NATO and the United Nations that any forces deployed in Kosovo will act in an even-handed manner, so that the policy and principles of non-discrimination can be part of the rebuilding of Kosovo?

Mr. Robertson: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said just now and for his consistent support throughout all the weeks of this campaign. He is right to pay credit to General Jackson. Anyone who has met him—that now includes the Serb generals—is in no doubt about his commitment, determination, skill, clarity and power. The other night, I mentioned to a large number of troops from Britain and other nations that I was very glad to be his boss and not his subordinate. No man is better suited to dealing with the situation that now exists.
I feel no sense of euphoria this evening, and neither do any of the troops or any of the staff in my Department. Yes, there is a cautious relief at what we have got this evening, but there is also, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman noted, an apprehension about what our troops may find in Kosovo. That apprehension arises in part from the physical dangers that the troops may encounter, but our troops are professionally trained to deal with them. However, it stems also from the horrors of the ethnic cleansing that began some time last year.
In regard to those who have committed crimes against humanity, I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we will be resolute in tracking them down. Where we find relevant evidence as the troops go in, we will make sure that the investigators from the international criminal tribunal get access to it before it can be destroyed. Indeed, section 14 of the draft security council resolution demands
full co-operation of all concerned, including the international security presence, with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
The UN has imposed that obligation on all its members.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a valid point about those Serbs who had the courage, decency and bravery to speak out during the campaign against the way

in which the Milosevic regime was conducting itself. I hope that the people of Yugoslavia will look to those people for a clear future once Milosevic has gone. Ten per cent. of the population of Kosovo is of Serb extraction. When General Jackson spoke outside that tent in Kumanovo about the even-handedness with which he will do his job, he spoke directly to those people, who have a right to their homeland. If they have acted decently during the campaign, they have every right to stay there and to be treated properly as part of the community. General Jackson will take on that obligation with great pleasure.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: While we welcome the statement, those of us who supported the Government's actions consistently during the past 10 weeks must emphasise that we fully regret every bomb that was dropped and every death that has occurred, as does the Prime Minister. Milosevic, the butcher of his own people in Bosnia and Kosovo, left us no alternative but to take action to end unacceptable ethnic cleansing. Should we ensure that the United Nations and the European Union concentrate on overcoming the major problems that we will find when we enter Kosovo and Yugoslavia? There are problems throughout the region, including in Albania, Romania and Bulgaria, which have been economically weakened by the struggles of the past few weeks.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks wisely in pointing out that we regret that we had to resort to force. The intransigence of Milosevic, the way in which he conducts his business and the violence with which he has conducted the campaign left us no alternative but to act both for humanitarian reasons, to save the people who were at threat, and for strategic reasons. Milosevic would not have stopped at Kosovo. Vojvodina would have been next and Montenegro after that. Who knows where would have been next—Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia or Albania? That is why British and NATO troops have been engaged. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the commitments that the international community will have to take on. In particular, Europe must rebuild that part of the Balkans and seek greater security for everyone who lives in that troubled part of the world.

Sir John Stanley: Will the number of Serbian troops and paramilitary police who will eventually be allowed back into Kosovo still be measured only in the hundreds?

Mr. Robertson: Yes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who will be responsible for civil administration in Kosovo?
The Prime Minister said yesterday that the administration would be guaranteed by the international community, but who will take the responsibility in the coming days?
Given that one of the most difficult problems facing any forces is to distinguish between guerrillas and civilians, how will we disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army both inside and outside Kosovo?
On ethnic cleansing, will measures be taken to protect the 100,000 members of the Serb community, most of whom are innocent and will face the danger of ethnic cleansing? Will any protection be given to the holy places, particularly the monastery of Decani?
Finally, as a matter of urgency, will my right hon. Friend set up a radiological survey following the use of depleted uranium munitions by NATO and a further survey of the dioxin poisons in the Danube and elsewhere? Such surveys are very urgent.

Mr. Robertson: But not nearly as urgent as getting back all the people evicted from their homeland. That is our priority. Although several of those matters will have to be treated, they will be handled with their due priority. The answer to my hon. Friend's first question about the civil administration is detailed in paragraph 10 of the draft United Nations Security Council resolution. In the first few days, it is clear that the commander of KFOR will be responsible for law and order until the Secretary-General has appointed an international civil presence in accordance with paragraph 10.
My hon. Friend asked about the disarmament of the KLA. Paragraph 9(b) of the draft resolution calls for the
demilitarisation of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and other armed Kosovo Albanian groups as required in paragraph 15".
The leaders of the KLA have been on television almost as often as my hon. Friend to make it clear that they, too, will comply with the provisions of the UN Security Council resolution.
My hon. Friend asked about the Serb community inside Kosovo, which I mentioned specifically. It will be another obligation on KFOR in the initial stages, and ultimately the international civil authority, to ensure that all the citizens of Kosovo, whatever their ethnic background, are protected from violence. The holy places will be protected under another provision of the international treaty by the troops who be allowed to return in small numbers for that specific task.
On the environmental impact, certain aspects of Yugoslav life will be affected by the bombing. It was all completely unnecessary. The bombing need not have taken place. Force need not have been used if Milosevic had recognised that the international community would not stand back and watch him butcher people because they happened to be of Albanian extraction.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the Secretary of State accept that not only Front Benchers but Back Benchers wish to praise the work of our troops and of all the NATO troops, especially the Americans, who are not often mentioned but who played such a major role? To put party politics to one side, it is fair to say that one man much enhanced his reputation by being so firm and definite: the Secretary of State for Defence.
Has the Secretary of State heard the statements made in the past 90 minutes by the Serb generals? They are saying that they signed the peace treaty to end the war and implement Milosevic's plans for peace. I have never heard such false nonsense, but that is what is going to be put over.

Mr. Stephen Pound: Alastair Campbell.

Sir Peter Emery: The point is not missed.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Serb people realise that this agreement could have been accepted by Milosevic months ago, even last October, without the loss of life and terrible damage to property caused by the bombing?

Mr. Robertson: With due modesty, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous comments. I take them as praise for the Department that I have the privilege to lead and for the troops out there on the front line. He is right to commend the United States of America, without which we could not have assembled the air armada, with its precision weaponry, which has brought us to this point and ended the conflict.
My memory is gradually coming back. We cannot all have omnibus memories and I realise that, in my earlier praise, I missed out the Department for International Development. Given the sheer scale of the challenge faced by all of us when the refugees came across the border, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the officials in her Department acted heroically to ensure that people were treated well.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Serb propaganda. I fear that many people who should have known better listened to the lies told by Milosevic and were taken in by those lies for all too long. I am glad that, eventually, the damage done to the military machine persuaded some people that perhaps they should have considered the truth for a moment. When the truth comes out, many decent people in Serbia will curl up in shame.

Ms Bridget Prentice: That cautious relief referred to by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of his statement is felt not only by Members of the House and by the people of Britain, but by the Kosovan refugees, some of whom have been welcomed to many of our constituencies. The unity of purpose of which he spoke, and which has also been expressed by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence during the past few weeks, must be expressed by all Members of the House. If it is not so done, those in Belgrade will take great succour.

Mr. Robertson: The House speaks with one voice. Milosevic cannot misunderstand the message: the relief that a mission, started with great reluctance, will end, we hope, with the refugees going back to their homes. My hon. Friend is right to point out that many people in this country took to their hearts and to their local communities the refugees from Kosovo, who came so far away from their own homes. Their stories, their personalities and their plight touched the hearts of millions of people throughout the continent and throughout the world. That in itself kept the drive going to ensure that Milosevic did not get away with making them refugees for ever.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State will recall that I consistently supported the use of military action from the earliest stages of this crisis. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers on their steadiness under political fire. Does he agree that those of us who were concerned about the over-reliance on air power alone may not have been proven wholly wrong, in that what was crucial to the resolution of the crisis—as well as the proper use of air power in context—was the success of our diplomacy in


bringing the Russians on side and the threat, which was becoming much clearer, that ground forces would be used if Milosevic did not comply?

Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he rightly says was his consistent support for our efforts. That has been carefully noticed by the public; their consistent support has also been absolutely essential. This evening of all evenings, I do not want to debate the ins and outs of what led us to this point. It was a combination of a series of factors, but, more than any of them, it was the commitment, resolution and unity of an alliance of free nations standing together against an unconscionable evil in our continent. That, if anything, was what led to the success of tonight.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I share my right hon. Friend's wish that the refugees will soon be able to go home. Will he assure the House that every possible assistance will be given to them and to other innocent victims of the war to rebuild their lives? Looking further into the future, has not the conflict in Kosovo highlighted the contradiction between the United Nations charter, with its emphasis on national sovereignty, and international law on human rights? Will the Government set themselves the task of securing international agreement on criteria that, if met, would make it appropriate to undertake international military intervention for humanitarian purposes?

Mr. Robertson: Providing assistance in rebuilding Kosovo and other parts of the Balkans will be a heavy burden on all of us in this and every other country of our continent, but we must do it, because we must not allow Milosevic to get away with the damage that he has done to the community there. Some of the British troops I met yesterday were Royal Engineers, and I was able personally to praise them for their work to create the refugee villages. If people can remember that far back, take the scene on Easter weekend of the ocean of human misery on the border between Macedonia and Kosovo; in 36 hours, those troops created towns in which people had habitation, shelter and food.
My hon. Friend makes an important and significant point about the limits of national sovereignty and the way in which the UN charter appeared until now to countenance the idea that anything went, as long as it happened within the national boundaries of any one country. We have shown that the international community has a bigger conscience and a bigger sense of responsibility than that implies. I dare say that, in the great debates that will take place after the refugees have gone back to their homes, that is one of the issues that will have to be addressed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I commend the Secretary of State on the role that he has played in the conflict over the past 75 days. I believe that all of our armed services are the most professional in the world, and they have shown themselves to be so in the way in which they have tackled serious difficulties.
However, does the Secretary of State believe that we should be concerned, given that one of the news tapes I read earlier this evening indicated that NATO had watered down several key conditions in order to get agreement with the Yugoslav generals more quickly than would

otherwise have been the case? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that watering down those key conditions might undermine the chances of there being a lasting peace and a stable Yugoslavia?

Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his commendation, but I am only one member of a Government who took on this commitment with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is in Cologne tonight, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development have, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, played key roles in a team that set out to establish the rule of international law and order, and we had the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House for our action.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have what we consider to be the best troops in the world. That is why the strategic defence review was specifically designed to ensure that, in future and if the country wanted us to, we would be able to do the right thing when there was a humanitarian challenge and a threat to the security of our continent.
None of the conditions that we sought has been watered down. The conditions laid down by NATO at the very beginning—the withdrawal of all Serb troops and paramilitaries; the return of the refugees; the insertion of an international security force; and a political process to take place to secure a future for the people of the region—have all been satisfied by and enshrined in the various agreements of the past few days. The hon. Gentleman should ask himself whether if the conditions had been watered down to the extent our troops might have been endangered, it is likely that General Jackson would have signed up to any agreement.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: The Secretary of State is right to sound a note of caution, for until the Serbian slaughter machine is out of Kosovo and the great majority of the people of Kosovo have returned to their shattered homes and villages, there is no cause for congratulation.
Nevertheless, I offer my thanks to the Secretary of State and his colleagues.
Those of us who have called for the protection of the Albanian majority in Kosovo now call with equal passion for the protection of the Serbian minority. One of the major aims of the peacekeeping force has to be to protect the innocent and decent people of Serbia in Kosovo from any action against them.
Our resolution on war crimes would be put into good effect if within days or weeks Karadzic and Mladic in Bosnia were arrested and brought before the International War Crimes Tribunal. For too long, those mass murderers have been allowed to go free, often passing the peacekeeping forces daily.
At some stage, this Parliament must take stock of the lessons of Yugoslavia. Five or six years ago, the majority on both sides of the House was in favour of appeasement. It would be absurd if we did not remember that tonight. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, were right in recent weeks to ignore those on both sides of the House who called for appeasement. If those right hon. and hon. Members, and they know who they are, had been heeded, the killing of young men would


have continued, as would the burning of homes, the rape of young women and girls and the terrible treatment of elders in Kosovo. Those right hon. and hon. Members will soon have to account for what they urged the Government to do. I am thrilled and excited that the Government did the right thing.

Mr. Robertson: Doing the right thing is what we are all about. Some will always disagree, but we live in a democracy. I just wish that people in Yugoslavia had been able to speak out in the way that Members of this House can, without any punishment. They may be criticised, but there has been much criticism in the past few weeks of those of us who took a stand that did not always look as good as it has in the past few days. The consistency and unity that have been the hallmarks of NATO have been an example to all.
My hon. Friend mentioned the protection of the Serb minority and General Jackson made it clear this evening that he will act even-handedly. It is imperative that that message goes out to the Serb minority. We are not in the business of ethnic cleansing, even after the trials and tribulations of the majority population. If we are to recreate a decent society, it must be with all those who call it their homeland being able to live there also.
On war crimes and those who have been indicted for them, I remind my hon. Friend that on Monday British troops acting with the stabilisation force in Bosnia apprehended in Prijedor a man who was indicted for being a shift commander at a concentration camp only a few years ago in Bosnia. He is now, like so many others that we have picked up, in The Hague facing international justice. Eventually, the day will come when all those mentioned by my hon. Friend and others will face the same justice.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am one of those who have been critical of the United Kingdom's involvement in the war. That notwithstanding, will he accept my personal congratulations to him on the way in which he has discharged the burdens of his office? Looking forward, what are his planning assumptions about the United Kingdom's contributions to KFOR? How many troops, how long will they be deployed and what planning assumptions have been made about cost? What are the likely consequences of a substantial deployment on our ability to mount another operation, for example in north Iraq, and what will be the impact of the cost on other defence objectives, for example the naval modernisation programme?

Mr. Robertson: I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has dissented honourably during the conflict and it is decent of him to say what he said. Others will reflect on the criticisms that they expressed and the forecasts and prophecies they made about what would happen. However, with the greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that our exchange this evening, based on breaking news at 9 o'clock in the evening, is the time to go into all those details. I encourage him to come back to the House

tomorrow afternoon for the debate on defence in the world which will start after business questions, when I will deal with those and many other subjects.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: May I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on the critical role that they have played in achieving this result? Does my right hon. Friend believe that, although the situation may remain difficult and dangerous, there are grounds for cautious optimism that we can end this terrible tragedy and bring security to the people of Kosovo and stability to the Balkans?

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, and I recall the memorable speech that he made in one of our many debates on this subject. We must look forward, but cautious optimism is all that we should feel at present. There are many tasks ahead.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I should like to take the Secretary of State forward a few weeks. If, after the deployment of troops by the west and Russia, there is a relapse in Milosevic's commitment to the agreement, does the Secretary of State think it is feasible that, with Russian troops on the ground, bombing could be resumed in order to secure Milosevic's compliance? Have there been any discussions with the Russians to deal with such an eventuality? If such negotiations have not taken place, is there not a risk that the Russians could acquire an effective veto on further action to secure Milosevic's compliance?

Mr. Robertson: If there are Russian troops on the ground, British troops will also be on the ground. British, Russian and troops from other NATO countries will be on the ground because the Serbs have withdrawn. As General Jackson made absolutely clear tonight, where appropriate, the air assault could take place over Yugoslavia where much attention has been paid in recent times. That is not being bloodthirsty or bloodcurdling, and I do not seek to humiliate Serbia. However, the Serbs must recognise that they have signed an agreement and that the sanction remains that brought them to the negotiating table in the first place.
Perhaps those who want to talk about Russian vetoes should look carefully at the role played by the Russians in recent days. Mr. Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, was there when we secured the first G8 statement; Mr. Chernomyrdin was instrumental in securing the Belgrade agreement; and Mr. Ivanov was also involved in obtaining the draft Security Council resolution yesterday. I pay a tribute this evening to the Russians and the role that they have played in bringing peace to the Balkans. That is a great indication of how the east and the west can co-operate to ensure that we live in a much safer, more stable and more civilised world.

Fiona Mactaggart: Like most other hon. Members, I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State and all those who have been involved in this process. I look forward to an outcome about which I think all hon. Members are united: the return of the refugees. Is the Secretary of State confident that, as well as the military arrangements to secure Kosovo, there are sufficient arrangements to ensure that the refugees know what is happening? I bet that that group of people is not


cautiously optimistic but desperate, over-excited, frightened and worried about whether other villagers will return before they do. Communication with refugees in the camps will be crucial in managing the process and making it work. I seek my right hon. Friend's assurance that the processes will be in place to achieve that objective.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I agree that we must keep the refugees informed. We have taken this action on their behalf, but that does not mean that they do not have a role to play. We made the refugees a promise—personally and collectively—that we would get them home, and some will be desperate to return, even though they know that the circumstances may be dire and dangerous. I know that it is high on General Jackson's agenda to ensure that communication is right and proper and that people know what is happening. It will take a lot of energy on the part of the international community to ensure that all the interlocking factors work together so that we can get the refugees back home—if we can, before the winter sets in.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I say to the Secretary of State that we particularly appreciate his coming to the House tonight at this late hour to make a statement and take questions? Perhaps some of his colleagues could follow his example. It is fair to say that throughout this conflict he has always sought to keep the House informed, which is appreciated.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to be cautious about what lies ahead and to pay tribute to our forces on the ground, particularly General Sir Mike Jackson. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that they face an extremely risky undertaking with land mines having been indiscriminately planted and other possible problems with the Kosovo Liberation Army or dissident forces thereof.
Although the Secretary of State was unable to answer the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and rightly drew attention to tomorrow's debate, he must have had some idea, in the run-up to the agreement, about whether he would need to deploy extra forces. Does he intend to call up Territorial Army reservists? Can he give us an idea of how long he expects our forces to stay out there, given that, for example, some of 5 Airborne Brigade and the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, which are based in Aldershot, have been on extensive training and other missions and would like to know for how long they are likely to be away?

Mr. Robertson: I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is nobody in the Ministry of Defence who considers 10.46 pm to be late at night, but it is nice to see him here at this late hour. I know that his questions about the Parachute Regiment have absolutely nothing to do with his being the Member for Aldershot. I spoke yesterday to the men of 1 Para and their distinguished commanding officer, Colonel Paul Gibson, at their training camp. They are absolutely raring to go and to do the job for which they have been training so extensively. Yes, that will be risky and dangerous, as I made clear. The men know that and they are trained to deal with such a situation.
By the end of this week, we shall have about 13,000 British troops in Macedonia, ready to go in when General Jackson gives the call. Large numbers of German and

French troops are already there. More German, French and Canadian troops are about to land in Greece to go up into Macedonia. The United States marine expeditionary unit is also on its way and will be in theatre.
I cannot say how long people will be there. I cannot say what they will see, and I do not know what they will find when they cross the border into Kosovo. They will do their job and they will come back home as quickly as they can. Those who serve with the allied rapid reaction corps HQ are, of course, usually deployed for six months. Presumably, the clock will start ticking on that six months when the accord is passed, if it is passed, by the North Atlantic Council. Those men will be looking forward to that period of deployment being over, but, at the moment, they look forward to an engagement that will take all the skills, resolution and guts that they so legendarily have.

Mr. Tony Baldry: May I take the Secretary of State back to a comment about the regular reserve and the Territorial Army? Clearly, policing and preserving the peace will require the support and services of many men and women. It will almost certainly require the support of members of the regular reserve and the TA, particularly those with specialist trades and skills. Many of those men and women have already given six months' voluntary service in Bosnia. Against that background, will the Secretary of State assure the House that if he calls on members of the TA to serve in Kosovo, he will use his powers under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 to ensure that their occupations and pensions are protected while they are serving in this endeavour?

Mr. Robertson: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's connection with the Territorial Army. We are very conscious of our responsibilities for the regular reserve and the TA. Some 10 per cent. of our forces in Bosnia come from the TA. If we need to deploy reserves and the TA to Kosovo—although that decision will ultimately be mine, the recommendation will come from the forces—we shall bear all the relevant factors very much in mind.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: In the light of this new situation, has the Prime Minister flown out to Kumanovo in Macedonia? If he has not, does he intend to do so?

Mr. Robertson: I was out in Macedonia yesterday. Frankly, the last thing that they need out there are more VIPs descending on them. We can quite effectively send our good wishes to them—and we have, and we will. I know the presence of the Prime Minister in Macedonia was deeply appreciated and had a huge morale-boosting effect not just our troops but on the refugees whom he met. I have gone on a number of visits during this conflict, and—I think—for the very first time in any conflict in which our troops have been engaged, I took Opposition Front Benchers to ensure that our troops knew that not just the Government but the people of this country supported them.

Mr. Bob Russell: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that the widely felt relief has special significance in garrison towns. I follow the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) in saying that there are already troops


from Colchester garrison in Macedonia. Indeed, I understand that several hundred more will be going. Does the Secretary of State agree that overstretch will be even more critical? If the short term becomes the long term, as it did in Bosnia, is there not a strong case for encouraging more of our European allies to relieve the pressures in Bosnia, so that British troops are not overstretched throughout the Balkans?

Mr. Robertson: Yes is the answer. We will ensure that all the European countries involved make a contribution. That is why I pay tribute to all those who have been engaged: the American pilots who have flown two thirds of the planes in the air campaign, the large number of NATO European ships in the naval presence and the thousands of European troops. They all have a role to play. The hon. Gentleman's presence as the representative of a garrison town reminds me to do one thing that I should have done a long time ago: pay a tribute to the families of the service personnel involved, who sit at home, worrying and concerned. They are making a huge contribution and a great sacrifice on behalf of the country. They are all hugely important. We think of them all the time. They are very much part and parcel of whatever policy we have for the armed forces.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),

That—

(1) the matter of the consultation document 'Life Long Learning—a new Learning Culture for All' be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration;
(2) at the sitting on Thursday 24th June, the Committee shall take questions for oral answer and shall then consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
(3) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5).—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FUNCTIONS AND STANDARDS) BILL

Ordered,
That Mr. Robin Corbett be discharged from the Committee on the draft Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill and Mr. John Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]

PETITION

Health Food Products

Valerie Davey: As sometimes happens in this House, we go from a matter of international magnitude to one of national and local detail.
I am pleased to present the petition of the Health Food Manufacturers Association on behalf of 1,780 petitioners who live in Bristol, West and/or use one of the excellent health food stores in the constituency.
The petition declares:
Government proposals would give the Medicines Control Agency virtually unlimited powers to classify safe products as medicines. This would mean that the MCA could remove at a stroke products that are vital to the good health of many consumers and are currently sold under food law. This is an abuse of the democratic process and a denial of freedom of choice.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health to reconsider the proposals and to introduce an immediate moratorium preventing the MCA from declaring these safe products to be medicines except on the grounds of illegal claims or safety and, further, to introduce new legislation appropriate to the special needs of safe, natural health products.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Media Standards

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. George Galloway: I must declare an interest, although I do so with some trepidation in the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. As the Register of Members' Interests shows, I myself am a journalist—a newspaper columnist, nowadays on The Mail on Sunday and the Catholic newspaper Flourish. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept it from me that, on at least one of those newspapers, my own views are not always necessarily the views of the management.
I should start by saying what my speech is not about, for there has been some media interest in that. It is not about outlining a litany of complaints about my own experiences with the media; there is not enough time for that. Regardless, I know the way to the libel courts, and am represented by Davenport Lyons-the legendary "Sue, Grabbit and Runne" of Private Eye fame. Besides, some of those experiences are more hurtful than others.
My last close encounter with the gutter press consisted of a 6 ft-tall young Cuban mulatta, purchased by the News of the World to say—in colour, on pages 1, 2 and 3—that I was
good looking & had a good body for my age & and did it with her five times a night under the Caribbean stars.
That is the type of slander that some of us have to put up with.
Neither is my speech about making a case against self-regulation, for Government intervention, for new legislation on privacy, or about anything like that. I am one of the very few surviving opponents of the last attempt at a privacy law—which was piloted by the least plausible advocate of such a thing, the former Member for Winchester, Mr. John Browne.
I have not changed my mind since then about the fact that there is no editor so venal that I should prefer to see a Minister—any Minister of any Government-sitting in that editor's chair, or making his or her editorial decisions. I have visited too many countries where the deadest hand on freedom is that of the censor—the Minister of Information, the proverbial "Minister for Truth"to wish to see us go even an inch down that road.
It is, moreover, not true that the current arrangements, in the form of the Press Complaints Commission, are a failure. In fact, in the first decade of the PCC's existence, four fifths of all complaints have been resolved bilaterally between newspaper and complainant. While, of course, there can always be improvements—I have some suggestions to make in that regard—our system of self-regulation is currently being studied by many people around the world who are trying to balance the precious, indeed fundamental, freedom of the press with the need to avoid cruel and gratuitous intrusion. Tomorrow, at the Law Society, in Chancery lane, representatives of 20 press councils, from Estonia to Iceland, will be conferring on the best way of reconciling those matters, and will very much use the British experience as a suitable case for study.
Lately, several controversies have clearly generated a great deal of heat. However, there has been more heat than light. In the murk, some people have suggested changes to

the self-regulatory framework which, while superficially attractive, do not really stand up to scrutiny. Some people, including noble Friends in the other place, seem to favour a "proactive PCC", which could trigger investigations itself, rather than being dependent on an alleged victim of abuse of the code making a complaint. However, that in itself could be an intrusion.
Many people—such as the comedian Harry Enfield, whose honeymoon was crudely interrupted by British tabloid paparazzi; or my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), whose holiday was similarly marred—despite their justifiable anger, have no wish to prolong their agony or widen the audience for their embarrassment by making a complaint. Moreover, it would clearly represent a type of double jeopardy if the PCC, acting in what it thought was the public good, were to ride unasked to their defence. Regardless, such people could well be on their way to the libel courts, or have others reasons why they do not wish to become a "proactive PCC" cause celebre.
A more engaged PCC more closely in tune with the industry and public attitudes and with a more hands-on chairman would be a good idea. I mean no disrespect to Lord Wakeham when I say that he is rather a figure from another age. Given that, among many other duties, he heads the royal commission investigating the future shape of the upper House of the British Parliament, he must be one of the country's busiest men. It would be preferable to have someone more steeped in the argot of the British press who would have more of a common and political touch, from which the standing of the PCC in the country would benefit.
There is also a case to answer in that some victims of abuse of the code are afraid to register a complaint for fear that the tabloids will vindictively pursue them. The code needs adjusting to make it clear that any such vindictive pursuit of a complainant would seriously exacerbate a newspaper's position and would be the subject of more serious sanction.
Similarly, the code needs to take account of the recidivist behaviour of some newspapers under some editors. It is surely unacceptable for breach after breach of the code to occur, with punishment no more severe than the publication of an adjudication tucked away on page 32 of the paper. The PCC should adopt a "three strikes and you're out" approach. If a newspaper was found on a second occasion in 12 months to have broken the code to which it had voluntarily subscribed, it should be required to publish the adjudication on the front page with an apology from the proprietor and the editor. If a third breach occurred within 12 months—we should remember that each editor is required in their contract of employment to comply with the code—it should be incumbent on the proprietor to dismiss the editor.
The code and the PCC are most seriously falling short of public expectation in what can loosely be described as entrapment. There are all kinds of entrapment for all kinds of purposes. Few would dispute that The Sunday Times was justified in its entrapment of Members of this House found to be accepting cash payments for asking parliamentary questions, or that The Guardian was right to deploy a cod fax to help get to the bottom of who really paid Jonathan Aitken's hotel bill at the Ritz. Not all subterfuge should be frowned on, but there must be a clear and undeniable public interest that overrides most people's natural queasiness about such tactics. Above all,


there must be no active commissioning of wrong-doing that would not otherwise have taken place. As we shall see, that is by no means always the case.
I shall concentrate on one newspaper—the aforementioned News of the World—and two cases in particular. One involves a minor celebrity who is now a guest of Her Majesty's prison service. The other involves a previously unknown couple, Sue and Bob, the owners of a two-star naturist English boarding house. Many of us must have been intrigued over the years about whether the famously intrepid News of the World investigators really made their excuses and left the scenes of depravity that they were helpfully bringing to our attention. Sue and Bob, armed with audio and visual aids, answered that question, at least as far as the chief crime reporter of the News of the World, Neville Thurlbeck, was concerned. After he had plastered on a double-page spread a story entitled "The guesthouse where all rooms come with en suite pervert", he was unmasked by the couple's videotape as the pervert who badgered, begged and finally bribed Bob and Sue into allowing him to indulge in a rather pathetic act of onanism at the foot of their bed.
Despite the News of the World being caught bang to rights in that case, the PCC refused even to consider the couple's complaint in one of its most spineless failures of the decade. The presence on the board of the PCC of Mr. Phil Hall, the editor of the News of the World, scarcely persuaded those two private citizens that self-regulation would do it for them.
Even more serious is the case of the minor television actor, John Alford, from the series "London's Burning". He is currently serving a prison sentence for supplying 2g of cocaine, having been entrapped by the chief investigative editor of the News of the World, Mahzer Mahmood. Mahmood posed, as is his habit, as an Arab prince with a retinue of followers. I know some Arab princes—some are my friends—and Mahzer Mahmood is no Arab prince. He was dismissed by The Sunday Times for dishonesty and for seeking to persuade workmates to behave dishonestly in order to cover up his misdemeanours. Nevertheless, that man is given apparently unlimited budgets to trap a long succession of dupes, from the directors of Newcastle United football club to young and greedy actors such as John Alford.
Mahmood took a suite in the Savoy hotel and dressed in the clothes of a prince of Arabia. For more than two weeks, he seduced Alford, chauffeuring him around in his hired Rolls-Royce and laying before him the mirage of the riches of Croesus, which could be his just for being the prince's friend and appearing at a non-existent festival in the Gulf.
Finally, when he had Alford eating out of his hand, he popped the question and asked if Alford knew where he could get some cocaine. As Alford said in his speech from the dock, he would never have dreamed of making this transaction if his friend, the Arab prince, whom he thought was going to be the making of him, had not asked him to do so. He said, and he was surely right, that the News of the World had manufactured the crime rather than reported it. Mahmood got his story and young Alford got a jail sentence and the ruination of his professional and, who knows, even his personal life.
Surely the entrapment of people into committing offences is a matter for the criminal law and a matter for the Government to consider seriously. The law was an ass when it imprisoned John Alford, and justice was not done.
Of course, there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the press about the taking of recreational drugs. I could, if I were minded, draw the House's attention to important luminaries of the fourth estate who are no strangers to such illicit substances. There is something especially piquant about Mr. Murdoch's newspapers' resorting to these extraordinary lengths to prove that the most obscure individuals, whom they ludicrously dub as "role models", indulge themselves in this way.
Let me tell the House about Mr. Matthew Freud. I understand that he is now a successful public relations man and friend of the famous. Back in the 1980s, Mr. Freud found himself in the dog house, in front of a judge who fined him £500 and told him he was a "very foolish young man" for supplying 3.19g of a powder containing cocaine.
Mr. Murdoch, nowadays a papal knight, must have discovered the importance of penitence and redemption, at least as it affects his family. The same Mr. Freud is now the consort and live-in lover of Miss Elizabeth Murdoch who will one day inherit the very same News of the World  in which princes of the press such as Mahzer Mahmood get high, laying in wait for fools whom they can entrap into supplying them with their powders.
In conclusion, I turn to the latest and arguably the greatest blunder by the tabloids—the sensational splash of seaside pictures of Sophie Rhys-Jones. That gross and tasteless act, in this case by another of Mr. Murdoch's flagships, The Sun, was a good old-fashioned story of personal betrayal, chequebook journalism and grotesque editorial misjudgment.
Far from having a melancholy ending, I believe that the humiliating climbdown by the editor of The Sun, David Yelland, was a triumph of the most important and safest form of sanction against unworthy journalism: the power of the people. The wave of angry public disapproval and the concentrated fire of the more respectable press secured quick and spectacular justice for the blameless Miss Rhys-Jones. People voting with their feet and their pockets against such journalism will always be the way of dragging the rudest red-top papers back out of the gutter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on securing tonight's debate. I note that he says that the views of the newspapers for which he writes do not always coincide with his own. He also said that he would not dwell on his own experience at the hands of the media because we did not have sufficient time. For the same reason, I will not dwell on my experience of the media.
I am not the first Minister to respond to a debate in the House on the issue and I am sure that I will not be the last. I am only sorry that there are not more members of the press present to hear tonight's important debate.
Recent behaviour of certain sections of the press has provoked concerns in the House and renewed, in some quarters, calls for greater controls on the press. I also


know that many in the House are of the view that sections of the press have recently gone way beyond the spirit and the letter of the Press Complaints Commission's code of practice, and I have some sympathy with those views. However, my hon. Friend will agree that we must avoid knee-jerk responses. As we have all too often seen in the past, such responses rarely, if ever, result in an effective solution to a perceived problem.
We should also remind ourselves that a free press remains the cornerstone of our democracy. Quite simply, we cannot have a free democratic society without a free press.
We can justifiably be proud of a long tradition of press freedom in this country. Since 1696, there has been no Executive intervention in the content of newspapers in peacetime. Newspapers are, and should remain, independent of government. It should be for the press to decide what and what not to publish, subject to the general law.
The press has frequently demonstrated that it is a powerful force for good in our society and the Government are committed to preserving the freedom necessary for it to fulfil its proper role. That is why we have repeatedly stated our preference for self-regulation—a position that my hon. Friend will support. We have expressed reluctance to introduce statutory regulation or a privacy law. At present, the Government have no plans, nor see any pressing reason, to introduce legislation to regulate the press.
Under the present system of self-regulation, the Press Complaints Commission seeks to conciliate between those who are aggrieved about alleged press abuses and the newspaper concerned, and, where that fails, to adjudicate according to a code of practice that has been agreed by the newspaper and magazine industry.
The code, to which my hon. Friend referred, covers many different issues, including intrusion into privacy, intrusion into grief or shock, opportunity to reply, payment for articles and, above all, inaccuracy. The PCC published a revised code of practice on 19 December 1997, with increased safeguards against intrusion and harassment, and protections for children. Most of the matters are not covered by the criminal or civil law, and thus the present arrangements give people an avenue of complaint that would not otherwise be available and which is fairly rapid and free. It is important to note that the great majority of those who complain to the PCC are satisfied with the outcome.
That is not to say that the Government believe that self-regulation is working perfectly. The Government expect the press to abide by the rules and commitments enshrined in the code of practice, and we continue to review the effectiveness of press self-regulation by monitoring alleged press abuses and the PCC's handling of them.
Ministers and my officials are in regular contact with the PCC to discuss a number of issues. The Government have repeatedly stated our desire to see further improvements to self-regulation. We have no hesitation in suggesting such improvements to both the PCC's operations and the code, as and when we think necessary. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to that process.
From my discussions with the noble Lord Wakeham, I know that he welcomes this continuing dialogue, and he is always open to considering suggested improvements to the code. However, we should recognise that any improvements are likely to be most effective if they are made with the general consent of the press. I do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving that.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I recognise that the behaviour of certain elements of the press has, in recent weeks, caused concern and distress to many—my hon. Friend mentioned some of those instances—but I do not believe that that should lead us to conclude that the time for statutory regulation is right. In my view, self-regulation continues to be the best way in which to ensure high editorial standards in this country. Let us not forget that, despite the occasional lapse, the history of the press over the last decade or so has been, by and large, one of continued responsible improvement.
The Government continue to be committed to monitoring the effectiveness of the current self-regulatory system. I thank my hon. Friend again for his suggestions and comments on the code, breaches of the code and possible punishment for such breaches, and I thank him particularly for what he says about entrapment, about which there has been great concern in recent weeks.
I noted with interest what my hon. Friend said about whether the PCC should be able to initiate its own investigations without a complaint being made to it, and he made a valid point in support of the present system. Recent events will feed into the continuing monitoring process that the Government will carry out in terms of the effectiveness of the system. In my opinion, the basic rationale for self-regulation has not been damaged by those recent events.
I conclude by quoting from an editorial in The Observer on 30 May, which said:
A free press, warts and all, is an indispensable component of democracy. If we some saw some warts last week, don't forget that wider truth.
In what has been a difficult few weeks for the press, that is a sentiment with which I hope most hon. Members can concur. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I assure him that we will take note of everything that he said during the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.